GIFT    OF 
JANE 


WILLIAM  BRANCH  GILES:  A  STUDY  IN 

THE  POLITICS  OF  VIRGINIA  AND 

THE  NATION  FROM  1790  TO  1830 


To 
ADA   ASH    ANDERSON, 

FAITHFUL  CO-LABORER 


WILLIAM  BRANCH  GILES 

From  a  Miniature  made  in  Washington  1813  and  now  in  the  possession  of 
Mrs.  J.  W.  Sharp,  Nee  Miss  Elizabeth  Townes,  great-grand 
daughter  of  Governor  Giles. 


William  Branch  Giles:    A  Study  in 

the  Politics  of  Virginia  and  the 

Nation  from  1790  to  1830 


DICE  ROBINS  ANDERSON,  B.A.,  M.A.,  PH.D. 

Professor  and  Head  of  the  Department  of  History  and 
Political  Science 

Richmond  College,  Richmond,  Virginia. 


JEItc 

GEORGE  BANTA  PUBLISHING  CO. 

MENASHA,   WIS. 

1914 


COPYRIGHT,  1914,  BY 

GEORGE  BANTA  PUBLISHING  COMPANY 

PITBLISHBRS 


PREFACE 

A  life  of  William  Branch  Giles  has  long  been  a  desideratum. 
His  active  labors  in  the  formation  of  the  Democratic-Republican 
Party,  his  long  service  in  legislative  bodies — the  General  Assem 
bly  of  Virginia  and  the  House  of  Representatives  and  Senate  of 
the  United  States ; — and  his  leadership  in  each  of  these  bodies ; 
his  dramatic  career  as  Governor ;  his  spectacular  appearance  in 
newspaper  and  pamphlet  literature  as  well  as  his  reputation 
for  marvellous  forensic  abilities ;  indeed  the  variety  of  his  ani 
mosities  and  the  conspicuousness  of  his  many  enemies — these 
things  and  others  point  him  out  as  a  figure  worth  studying. 
He  was  a  friend  of  Jefferson  and  an  enemy  of  Hamilton.  He 
became  a  foe  of  Gallatin  and  Monroe.  He  finally  espoused  the 
cause  of  Andrew  Jackson  and  developed  into  the  bitterest  of 
the  enemies  of  John  Quincy  Adams.  Like  all  men  he  went 
through  cycles  of  political  opinions.  In  the  days  of  Jefferson 
he  shared  the  idealism  and  enthusiasm  of  small  farmers  and 
artisans,  of  the  Baptists,  Presbyterians,  and  Methodists  who 
crowded  one  another  in  trying  to  touch  the  hem  of  free-thinking 
Jefferson's  garment ;  he  fought  against  the  National  Bank,  pro 
tective  tariff,  and  the  American  Navy;  he  struggled  against 
usurpations  of  power  by  the  General  Government.  He  came, 
however,  to  write  drastic  laws  based  on  a  broad  construction 
of  the  Constitution  and  deplored  lack  of  energy  on  the  part 
of  the  Federal  Government ;  he  even  cooperated  in  Federalist 
attacks  on  Republican  administrators.  He  ended  his  career 
with  the  same  ardor  for  State  Rights  and  strict  construction 
which  had  characterized  his  youth,  but  adopted  a  most  un-Jef- 
fersonian  hostility  to  Democratic  change  in  the  Constitution  of 
Virginia.  He  closed  his  days  as  an  apostle  of  unyielding  con 
servatism  and  as  a  prophet  of  secession. 

The  life  of  this  remarkable  Virginian  has  greatly  interested 
the  writer.  If  the  story  has  been  well  told,  it  will  interest  the 
reader.  It  is  a  story  difficult  to  put  together  because  the  mater 
ials  have  been  extensive  on  those  phases  of  the  life  which  are 
least  interesting,  and  scattered  and  few  on  those  phases  that 


296332 


would  prove  most  entertaining.  Giles  was  a  most  generous 
public  writer  and  copious  speaker  but  apparently  a  very  stingy 
letter  writer.  No  effort  has  been  omitted  to  discover  material 
or  to  study  it.  Interpretation  has  likewise  been  no  easy  task. 
Although  little  work  has  heretofore  been  done  on  Giles's  life,  yet 
every  writer  of  history  for  the  period  1790-1830  has  thought 
it  his  duty  to  give  an  estimate  of  this  remarkable  Virginian. 
A  characteristic  opinion  is  that  of  Henry  Cabot  Lodge  who  has 
spoken  of  him  as  a  "coarse  political  ruffian"  and  "a  rough, 
brazen,  loud-voiced  Virginian,  fit  for  every  bad  work,  no  matter 
how  desperate."  The  history  of  the  time  in  which  Giles  lived 
has  been  written  very  largely  by  the  descendants  and  partisans 
of  his  enemies — and  their  opinions  of  him  have  been  unusually 
bad.  It  has  been  difficult  to  avoid  accepting  the  views  of  the 
talented  New  England  historians  on  the  one  hand  or  on  the 
other,  in  a  reaction  from  them,  to  avoid  taking  opinions 
from  another  school,  equally  as  partisan.  The  task  has  been 
rendered  the  harder  by  the  limitations  of  space  the  writer  felt 
it  necessary  to  obey. 

The  work  has  been  made  easier  and  more  pleasant  by  the 
kind  assistance  of  many  generous  friends.  To  Professors  Dodd 
and  McLaughlin  of  the  University  of  Chicago,  I  owe  a  large 
debt  of  gratitude  for  years  of  kindness.  Mr.  Hunt  and  his  staff 
at  the  Congressional  Library ;  Dr.  Mcllwaine  and  his  assistants 
at  the  Virginia  State  Library;  Mr.  Stanard  and  the  Virginia 
Historical  Society ;  Mr.  Henry  Adams,  the  famous  historian  of 
the  administration  of  Jefferson  and  Madison;  Mr.  T.  P.  Giles 
and  the  members  of  the  interested  family;  Dr.  H.  J.  Eckenrode, 
my  distinguished  colleague  in  the  Department  of  History  at 
Richmond  College;  and  many  others  in  various  parts  of  the 
country  have  helped  when  called  upon. 

I  wish  to  acknowledge  with  particular  gratitude  the  persis 
tent  kindness  of  Mr.  Earl  G.  Swem,  the  immensely  capable 
Assistant  Librarian  of  the  Virginia  State  Library  who  has 
several  times  read  both  the  manuscript  and  the  proof,  and  to 
Mr.  E.  J.  Woodhouse,  Instructor  in  History  at  Yale  Univer 
sity,  who  gave  unstintedly  of  his  valuable  time  in  token  of  a 
cordial  friendship  of  many  years'  standing  , 


To  my  wife,  more  than  to  all  others,  I  must  make  acknowl 
edgment  of  never  failing  aid  given  in  countless  ways  during  the 
five  years  that  this  study  has  been  around  the  house,  and  of 
many  sacrifices  which  she  has  cheerfully  made  in  behalf  of 
my  labor. 

It  is  certainly  only  fair  for  me  to  express  here  my  appreci 
ation  of  the  painstaking  care,  the  unfailing  courtesy  and  even 
the  generosity  of  Mr.  George  Banta  and  his  staff,  the  publishers 
of  this  book.  They  thoroughly  know  their  craft,  and  yet  are 
patient  with  young  authors,  who  know  neither  the  printer's 
craft  nor  their  own. 

I  wish  also  to  express  here  my  appreciation  of  the  action  of 
the  Illinois  Division  of  the  Daughters  of  the  Confederacy  in 
conferring  upon  the  writer  of  these  pages  their  prize  for  1914. 
Whether  their  judgment  as  to  this  particular  piece  of  work  is 
correct  or  not,  certain  it  is  that  their  endeavor  to  encourage 
attempts  at  genuine  scholarship  in  Southern  History  is  worthy 
of  emulation. 

Richmond  College,  Richmond,  Va., 

Sept.  2,  1914. 


CONTENTS 

Page 

CHAPTER  I 
Early    Years 

CHAPTER  II 
Fighting  the  Federalists 10 

CHAPTER  III 
The  Jay  Treaty 36 

CHAPTER  IV 
The  Retirement  of  Washington  and  the  French  War.  ...        51 

CHAPTER  V 

The  Virginia  Resolutions  of  1798  and  the  Election  of 
1800    61 

CHAPTER  VI 
Republican  Reformation :  War  on  the  Courts 76 

CHAPTER  VII 
Monroe's  Treaty  and  the  Burr  Trial 101 

CHAPTER  VIII 
The  Chesapeake  Outrage  and  the  Treason  Bill 112 

CHAPTER  IX 
The  Campaign  of  1808:  Repeal  of  the  Embargo 122 

CHAPTER  X 
The  Smith  Faction 146 

CHAPTER  XI 
The  War  of  1812:  Triumphant  Insurgency 171 

CHAPTER  XII 
"Putting  Claws  on  Gallatin" 185 

CHAPTER  XIII 
Closing  the  War :  Retirement  of  Senator  Giles 196 

CHAPTER  XIV 
State  Rights  in  Virginia  after  the  War  of  1812 207 

CHAPTER  XV 

The  Convention  of  1829-30 229 

Bibliography , 238 

Appendix — 
Index — 


WILLIAM  BRANCH  GILES:     A  STUDY  IN  THE  POL 
ITICS  OF  VIRGINIA  AND  THE  NATION,  1790-1830 
D.  R.  ANDERSON 

CHAPTER  I 
EARLY  YEARS 

If  legend  could  be  accepted  as  truth  the  biographer  of 
William  Branch  Giles  would  be  compelled  to  go  back  at  least 
as  far  as  Roman  days.  For  Caius  Licinius  Stolo,  author  of 
the  Licinian  rogations,  also  discovered  "the  best  method  of 
clearing  away"  "useless  suckers"  from  trees  and  furnished  to 
his  family  occasion  to  place  the  "verdant  branch"  upon  their 
coat  of  arms.  All  the  Branches,  Brancos,  Braunches,  Branshes 
and  the  rest,  whether  found  in  Spain,  France,  Italy,  England, 
or  America,  according  to  the  story,  owe  the  origin  of  their 
name  to  the  horticultural  genius  of  the  ancient  patriot.  It 
may,  as  says  the  family  genealogist,  to  whom  the  present  writer 
is  much  indebted,  be  "a  deal  more  easy  to  shrug  aside  the  Licin 
ian  origin  of  the  Branches  than  it  is  to  disprove  it."1  But 
this  writer  will  attempt  to  do  neither,  and  will  pass  on  therefore, 
to  the  next  items  in  the  list.  The  reliable  history  of  that  por 
tion  of  the  Branch  family  in  which  we  are  interested,  begins 
with  Richard  Branch  who  moved  to  Abingdon  in  Berkshire 
County,  England,  in  the  latter  part  of  the  fifteenth  century. 
This  Richard  was  a  woolen  draper  by  trade  and  likewise  master 
of  the  important  guild  entitled,  the  Fraternity  of  the  Holy 
Cross.  His  second  son  was  William  Branch,  mayor  of  Abing 
don,  who  married  into  the  ancient  family  of  Bostock.  Lionel, 
third  son  of  the  aforesaid  William,  was  an  "unthrifty  and  dis 
obedient  son"  and  left  his  son  Christopher  with  such  small  sup 
port  that  at  the  age  of  seventeen  years  Christopher  and  wife 
set  sail  for  the  new  land  of  promise — the  land  of  the  Virgin 
Queen. 

They  settled  at  "Arrowhattocks"  in  that  part  of  Henrico 
County  subsequently  to  be  called  the  County  of  Chesterfield. 

1  James  Branch  Cabell, — "Branch  of  Abingdon."  To  this  book  and  its 
companion,  "Branchiana",  I  am  indebted  for  some  genealogical  matter. 


2  WILLIAM  BRANCH  GILES 

Christopher  Branch's  son  and  grandson  bore  the  same  Christian 
name  as  himself.  The  third  of  that  prenomen  had  a  son  Henry 
by  name,  to  whom  was  given  in  the  providence  of  God  a 
daughter,  Ann.  Ann  Branch  married  William  Giles,  father  of 
the  subject  of  our  biography. 

William  Giles,  the  father  of  William  Branch  Giles,  was  the 
son  of  John  Giles,  who  was  the  son  of  William  Giles  and 
Bethenia  Knowles,  the  only  child  of  Captain  John  Knowles 
who  left  any  issue.  William  Branch  Giles,  born  August  12, 
1762,  was  the  youngest  child  of  William  Giles  and  Ann  Branch. 
There  was  an  older  brother,  John,  who  served  in  the  Revolution 
ary  war  and  received  bounty  lands  in  Kentucky  which  on  his 
early  death  he  is  said  to  have  left  to  his  younger  brother.2 
Of  John  an  interesting  story  is  told  by  Colonel  William  Fon 
taine  in  a  letter  dated  October  26,  1781,  seven  days  after  the 
surrender  at  Yorktown  of  which  he  writes:  "All  property 
taken  from  the  inhabitants  by  the  British  is  liable  to  be  claimed 
by  them.  In  consequence  Master  Tarleton  met  with  a  most 
severe  mortification  yesterday.  The  hero  was  prancing  through 
the  streets  of  York  on  a  very  fiery,  elegant  horse,  and  was  met 
by  a  spirited  young  fellow  of  the  country,  who  stopped  him, 
challenged  the  horse  and  ordered  him  instantly  to  dismount. 
Tarleton  halted  and  paused  a  while  through  confusion,  then 
told  the  lad  if  it  was  his  horse,  he  supposed  he  must  be  given 
up,  but  insisted  to  ride  him  some  distance  out  of  town  to  dine 
with  a  French  officer.  This  was  more,  however,  than  Mr.  Giles 
was  disposed  to  indulge  him  in,  having  been  forced  when  he  and 
his  horse  were  taken  to  travel  good  part  of  the  night  on  foot 
at  the  point  of  the  bayonet;  he  therefore  refused  to  trust  him 
out  of  sight,  and  made  him  dismount  in  the  midst  of  the  street 
crowded  with  spectators.  Many  such  instances  have  since 
happened  on  the  road."3 

2  MS.  Memoirs  of  Mrs.  William  Overton,  a  granddaughter  of  William 
B.  Giles. 

'Memoirs  of  a  Huguenot  Family.  Translated  and  compiled  from  the 
original  autobiography  of  the  Rev.  James  Fontaine,  etc.,  by  Ann  Maury, 
N.  Y.  1853,  pp.  444-447. 


EARLY  YEARS  3 

The  father  of  the  statesman  was  a  man  of  influence  in  the 
county  of  Amelia  and  vestryman  of  the  parish  church.4  When 
he  died  his  son  William  Branch  became  executor  under  a  bond 
of  5000  pounds  and  on  the  death  of  the  widow,  William  B.  was 
to  receive  her  five  hundred  and  seventy-six  of  the  nine  hundred 
and  seventy-six  acres  belonging  to  the  home  place.5  To  these 
five  hundred  and  seventy-six  acres  Congressman  Giles — for  the 
father  died  in  1793 — was  to  add  many  hundred  more. 

To  understand  the  life  of  Giles  one  must  understand  the 
section  and  county  of  Virginia  in  which  he  and  his  people  for 
two  generations  before  him  had  lived.  Amelia  county  is  one  of 
the  eastern  counties  of  the  great  Piedmont  section  of  Virginia. 
Set  off  from  Prince  George  in  1734,  it  bore  during  the  youth  of 
Giles  some  of  the  characteristics  of  a  semif rentier  region.  It 
was  sparsely  settled,  its  roads  were  bad,  and  though  rich  in 
gentle  blood  and  distinguished  citizens,  gave  to  the  traveler  no 
very  pleasant  impression.  According  to  a  neighboring  clergy 
man  writing  in  1776  "it  had  for  many  years  been  notorious  for 
carelessness,  profaneness,  and  immoralities  of  all  kinds.  Gam 
ing,  swearing,  drunkenness,  and  the  like,  were  their  delight, 
while  things  sacred  were  their  scorn  and  contempt."8  Francis 
Asbury,  however,  writing  in  1804  speaks  of  "solitary  Amelia, 
with  its  worn  out  fields  of  hundreds  of  acres,  and  old  houses 
falling  into  ruins."7  Into  Amelia  as  into  the  rest  of  the  Pied 
mont  and  western  portions  of  the  state  dissenting  sects  and 
preachers  found  their  way.  The  wave  of  Scotch-Irish  Presby 
terians  passing  from  Hanover  west  and  the  wave  from  the  val 
ley  passing  east  made  their  contribution  to  the  population  of 
the  circle  of  counties  within  which  Amelia  lay.8  In  1771,  also, 
the  separatist  Baptists  of  Virginia  had  in  this  county  their 
largest  congregation.9  And  in  May  1780,  dissenters  from  Amelia 
sent  a  petition  to  the  legislature  desiring  that  the  vestries  in 

4  See  Order  Book  of  Amelia  County  1780-1782,  26.  Meade's  Old  Churches, 
Ministers,  and  Families,  ii,  22. 

8  Will  Book  of  Amelia  County  5:107. 

"Asbury's  Journal,  vol.  i,  211  (3  volume  edition,  N.  Y.,  1852). 

7Ibid,  vol.  iii,  169. 

"Meade,  ii,  20. 

9Semple,  Virginia  Baptists  (Beale's  revision),  70. 


4  WILLIAM  B.  GILES 

the  several  parishes  be  dissolved  and  hereafter  be  freely  elected 
by  the  people ;  further  also,  that  marriages  by  dissenting  minis 
ters  be  declared  lawful.10  The  established  church  of  which 
William  Giles  was  vestryman  had  fallen  into  a  bad  way.  From 
1773  to  1776,  the  minister  in  Raleigh  parish  was  Rev.  John 
Brunskill — and  to  his  unpopularity  is  attributed  some  of  the 
misfortunes  of  the  established  church  in  the  county.  Brunskill 
was  a  loyalist — an  imprudent  loyalist.  He  is  alleged  to  have 
declared  from  his  pulpit  that  to  take  part  in  the  Revolution 
was  rebellion.  The  Archers,  the  Tabbs,  the  Egglestons,  and 
probably  the  Gileses  arose  on  this  occasion  and  walked  deliber 
ately  from  the  building  threatening  bodily  chastisement  on  the 
"execrable  parricide."11  What  Episcopalians  remained  faithful 
no  doubt,  were  not  far  removed  in  faith  and  practice  from  the 
dissenting  sects.  The  soil  of  Amelia,  therefore,  was  suitable 
for  a  gospel  of  discontent  and  democracy.  Amelia  county  was 
fated  to  follow  Jefferson  and  Giles. 

In  such  an  environment  was  Giles  born  and  brought  up. 
Nothing  whatever  of  his  youth  has  come  down  to  us.  His 
father  was  anxious  that  his  youngest  son  should  receive  an 
education  and  therefore  sent  him  to  the  newly-established  col 
lege  of  Hampden-Sidne}^.  Hampden-Sidney  College,  located  in 
Prince  Edward  county,  the  next  county  southwest  from  Amelia, 
was  established  by  the  Presbyterian  Scotch-Irish  of  Virginia 
and  was  liberally  patronized  by  ambitious  young  men  of  the 
Piedmont  section  of  the  state.  At  Hampden-Sidney,  Giles  was 
under  the  immediate  care  of  President  Samuel  Stanhope  Smith, 
an  eloquent  preacher  as  well  as  able  administrator.  When 
President  Smith  resigned  in  1779  to  accept  the  chair  of  Moral 
Philosophy  in  another  Presbyterian  College  dear  to  the  hearts 
of  Piedmonters,  the  college  of  New  Jersey,  he  took  along  with 
him  a  number  of  Virginians  and  Hampden-Sidney  students. 
Indeed  it  was  no  unusual  occurrence  for  sprightly  young  men 
from  the  regions  of  the  south  to  make  their  educational  pilgri 
mages  to  the  famous  Presbyterian  College  at  the  north.  James 

10  See  Copy  in  James's  Struggle  for  Religious  Liberty  in  Virginia,  70. 

"Meade,  Old  Churches,  Ministers,  and  Families  of  Virginia,  ii,  21. 


EARLY  YEAES  5 

Madison  and  Henry  Lee  both  had  done  so,  and  many  of  Giles's 
associates  in  Virginia  were  Princeton  men.  He  and  his  negro12 
under  the  especial  care  of  Professor  Smith  went  along  with  the 
rest.  Giles's  most  cherished  friend,  Abraham  B.  Venable,  his 
predecessor  in  the  Senate  of  the  United  States,  and  a  victim 
of  the  horrible  theatre  fire  in  Richmond  in  1811,  was  a  fellow 
student  as  were  the  two  other  Venable  boys,  Samuel  and  Rich 
ard  N.  Also  many  of  his  associates  in  national  politics  were 
fellow  students  during  a  part  of  his  course.  The  most  dis 
tinguished  of  his  classmates  in  1781  was  Edward  Livingston, 
afterwards  member  of  Congress,  Secretary  of  State,  and  Minis 
ter  to  France.13  Livingston  and  Giles,  with  four  others  received 
the  degree  of  Bachelor  of  Arts  at  the  Commencement  of  1781. 

From  Princeton,  Giles  went  to  William  and  Mary,  following 
another  precedent  established  by  eminent  men — to  study  under 
the  great  legal  teacher,  Chancellor  Wythe.  In  the  Amelia 
County  Order  Book  under  date  of  December  22,  1785,  occurs 
the  following  item:  "On  motion  of  William  B.  Giles  Gent  this 
court  doth  recommend  the  said  William  B.  Giles  to  the  Exam 
iners  appointed  by  law  as  a  Person  of  Probity  Honesty  and 
Grand  Demesne."  On  the  twenty-third  of  March,  1786,  the 
said  "William  B.  Giles  Gent."  produced  his  license,  and  was  ad 
mitted  to  practice  in  the  Court.14  Launching  into  the  prac 
tice  of  the  law,  he  qualified  in  the  courts  of  Petersburg  and 
the  neighboring  counties. 

Petersburg,  where  by  1790  Giles  had  a  "house,"15  "was  a 
tolerably  neat  little  town,  built  along  the  riverside,  only  two 
streets  deep,  and  a  mile  and  a  half  in  extent,  on  a  hill  of 
pretty  rapid  elevation."  Its  society  was  "polite,  obliging,  and 
hospitable."  Its  principal  business  was  the  tobacco  trade. 
Wagons  bearing  hogsheads  of  this  product  came  in  from  the 

12  The  wealthier  Virginians  took  negroes  with  them  when  they  went  off 
to  school.  For  instance  in  1754  eight  of  the  students  at  William  and  Mary 
had  negroes  to  wait  on  them. 

"See  Samuel  Davies  Alexander — "Princeton  during  the  Eighteenth 
Century,"  N.  Y.,  1872.  This  gives  a  list  of  the  graduating  classes  and  very 
brief  biographical  sketches. 

"Amelia  County  Order  Book. 

16  Letter  of  Edward  Bland,  May  27,  1790.     Ms.  Va.  Historical  Society. 


6  WILLIAM  BRANCH  GILES 

surrounding  counties  of  Virginia,  but  especially  from  North 
Carolina  for  which  Petersburg  served  as  an  emporium.  As  at 
Richmond,  flour  mills  were  in  abundance,  and  churches  scarce.16 
But  this  deficiency  bothered  young  Giles  no  whit  for  he  had 
in  early  days  no  great  reputation  for  piety — however  much  the 
court  of  Amelia  may  have  found  him  to  be  a  "Person  of  Probity 
Honesty  and  Grand  Demesne."  "Giles's  career  at  the  bar," 
says  a  friend,  "was  rapid  and  successful  beyond  precedent." 
In  opposition  to  Patrick  Henry  in  a  case,  he  won  the  praise 
of  the  great  orator  for  his  manner  of  conducting  his  side  of 
the  controversy.17  Frequently  he  was  called  upon  to  plead 
the  cases  of  British  creditors. 

It  has  proved  impossible  to  find  details  of  Giles's  profes 
sional  career ;  it  is  known  that  his  career  at  the  bar  was  notable. 
He  continued  the  practice  of  the  law  during  his  congressional 
life,  and  was  called  by  Jefferson  a  lawyer  of  eminence.18  Accord 
ing  to  Giles  himself,  by  1792  he  had  been  employed  in  at  least 
one  hundred  British  debt  cases,  and  was  "as  successful  in  collect 
ing  monies  under  judgments  as  is  usually  the  case  with  citizens 
of  the  state  of  Virginia."  It  is  interesting  to  note  his  remark 
that  "in  all  cases  within  my  recollection  in  which  the  debts 
were  established  by  competent  testimony,  judgments  were  ren 
dered  for  the  plaintiff."1 '  This  was  also  the  opinion  of  Monroe, 
who  says  that  it  was  always  the  contention  of  ablest  counsel 
at  the  bar  that  there  was  no  state  law  in  the  way  of  the  col 
lection  of  debts  due  British  creditors,  and  that  if  there  had 
been  the  Treaty  would  control  it.  However,  Monroe  admits 
that  British  merchants  declined  bringing  suits  before  the  for 
mation  of  the  National  Government,  but  claims  that  since  the 
peace  of  1783  they  had  been  progressing  with  great  success  in 
amicable  settlements.20 

16  The   Journal   of   Latrobe,    107-110.     See   also   description  by   Schoepf 
in  his  Travels  (translation  by  Morrison),  vol.  2,  72. 
18Am.  State  Papers,  Foreign,  I,  234. 
"Richmond  Enquirer,  December  16,  1830. 

19  Letter  to  Jefferson,  May  6,  1792.    Jefferson  MSS.  Library  of  Congress. 
See  also  Am.  St.  Papers,  For.  I,  234. 

20  Am.  State  Papers,  For.  I,  234.    Monroe  was  in  a  position  to  know,  as 
he  went  all  over  the  State  pleading  for  the  creditors. 


EARLY  YEARS  7 

Because  of  the  prominence  of  these  cases  in  Giles's  law  prac 
tice  it  will  be  desirable  to  give  some  account  of  the  question  at 
issue.  Before  the  Revolution  Virginia  planters  sent  their  to 
bacco  to  England  in  payment  for  British  goods  brought  up 
to  their  very  doors  by  British  ships.  The  balance,  however, 
was  generally  against  the  planter,  and  when  the  Revolution 
came,  Virginians  owed  much  to  creditors  in  the  old  country.21 
An  act  of  the  General  Assembly  in  177722  allowed  the  debtor 
to  pay  his  debt  into  the  loan  office  of  the  state.  Another  act 
of  177923  vested  British  property  in  the  Commonwealth  by 
escheat  and  forfeiture.  The  Treaty  of  1783,  however,  stip 
ulated  that  creditors  on  neither  side  should  meet  with  lawful 
impediment  to  the  recovery  of  their  bona  fide  debts.  But  de 
spite  the  treaty,  the  British  failed  to  surrender  the  western 
posts  which  they  held  or  to  make  payment  for  negroes  which 
they  had  carried  off.  Resolutions  adopted  by  the  General  As 
sembly  in  June,  1784,  declared  that  "so  soon  as  reparation 
is  made  for  the  aforesaid  infraction  [carrying  off  negroes],  or 
Congress  shall  judge  it  indispensably  necessary  such  acts  of 
the  legislature  passed  during  the  late  war,  as  inhibit  the  re 
covery  of  British  debts,  ought  to  be  repealed,  and  payment 
made  thereof  in  such  time  and  manner  as  shall  consist  with 
the  exhausted  situation  of  this  commonwealth."24  An  act  of 
December  12,  1787,  repeals  all  laws  preventing  the  recovery 
of  debts  due  British  subjects  but  suspends  this  repeal  until  the 
posts  have  been  surrendered  and  negroes  paid  for;25  another 
act  left  to  the  courts  the  determination  as  to  whether  debts 
paid  into  the  loan  office  were  discharged.26  In  the  meantime 
the  Constitution  and  laws  of  the  United  States  'and  treaties 
made  under  the  authority  of  the  United  States  had  become  the 
supreme  law  of  the  land.  The  cases  in  which  Giles  was  inter 
ested  probably  all  fell  after  1787. 

21  The  British  claimed  the  amount  was  £2,000,000.  The  Complete  Anas 
of  Jefferson,  78. 

^Hening  9:  377. 

^Hening  10:  66. 

24  Journal  House  of  Delegates,  May  Session,  1784,  74. 

25  Act  of  Dec.  12,  1787.     Hening  vol.  12:  528. 
28  Act,  January  3,  1788. 


8  WILLIAM  B.  GILES 

The  argument  which  Giles  offered  was  probably  that  known 
to  have  been  offered  in  other  cases.  The  laws  of  Virginia 
passed  during  the  Revolution,  said  British  creditors,  did  not 
confiscate  debts,  for  debts  are  in  international  law  not  subject 
to  confiscation.  But  in  any  case  the  Treaty  of  1783  was  su 
perior  to  the  laws  of  the  States  and  the  Treaty  had  not  been 
abrogated  by  violations  committed  by  Englishmen.  The  cases 
were  probably  the  most  valuable  which  Giles  could  have  argued 
—they  necessitated  a  study  of  the  statutes  and  history  of 
Virginia,  a  reading  of  Vattel  and  all  the  great  authorities  on 
international  law;  and  an  interpretation  of  the  Federal  Con 
stitution.  They  offered  him  an  education,  useful  in  his  public 
career.  But  the  nationalistic  inclination  which  he  immediately 
received  was  to  be  very  quickly  outgrown. 

Although  a  faithful  lawyer  and  little  of  a  politician  down 
to  1790,  Giles  was  an  interested  observer  of  all  that  was  going 
on.  During  the  sessions  of  the  convention  of  1788  when  the 
great  struggle  between  the  giants  was  taking  place  over  the 
question  of  the  ratification  by  Virginia  of  the  Federal  Con 
stitution,  William  B.  Giles  was  among  the  young  men  who 
crowded  to  Richmond  to  be  spectators  of  the  wonderful  con 
test.27  George  Mason  heard  him  discuss  the  merits  of  the  great 
question  at  a  hotel,  and  later  in  the  day  is  said  to  have  reported : 
"there  was  a  stripling  of  a  lawyer  at  the  Hotel  this  morning 
who  has  as  much  sense  as  one-half  of  us,  though  he  is  on  the 
wrong  side."2  Giles  was  an  enthusiastic  supporter  of  the  new 
Constitution,  and  as  is  well-known,  Mason  was  one  of  its  lead 
ing  opponents. 

The  Constitution  was  ratified,  the  government  organized, 
Giles  continued  to  practice  law.  However,  in  1790  a  vacancy 
occurred  in  the  representation  in  Congress  from  his  district 
through  the  death  of  Theodorick  Bland.  Entering  the  race 
for  the  vacant  seat  the  young  lawyer  found  himself  opposed  by 
Colonel  Edmunds,  a  wounded  veteran  of  the  Revolutionary  war, 
and  very  popular.  Vigorously  espousing  the  cause  of  the  new 

27  Collections  of  the  Va.  Hist.  Society,  New  Series,  vols.  IX,  X.    Grigsby's 
History  of  the  Virginia  Convention  of  1788  edited  by  R.  A.  Brock. 
88  Enquirer,  Dec.  16,  1830. 


EARLY  YEARS  9 

Constitution,  disdaining  to  ask  for  a  vote  or  adopt  any  ques 
tionable  means  to  secure  the  victory,  he  won  by  virtue  of  his 
cause  and  his  ability.29  He  entered  the  national  service  at 
the  early  age  of  twenty-eight  and  was  to  remain  in  it  almost 
continuously  for  a  quarter  of  a  century.  He  was  to  play  one 
of  the  most  prominent  roles  in  the  history  of  our  national 
legislature. 

29  Enquirer,  Dec.  18,  1830. 


CHAPTER  II 
FIGHTING  THE  FEDERALISTS 

To  anyone  who  has  followed  the  subsequent  career  of  Giles 
it  is  diverting  to  learn  that  he  bore  with  him  to  Philadelphia  a 
letter  of  introduction  to  Madison  written  by  John  Marshall 
who  calls  the  young  Petersburg  attorney  "my  friend."30  The 
future  chief  justice,  however,  must  have  been  very  cautious  in 
recommending  his  friends,  if  this  letter  is  a  fair  sample  of  his 
recommendations:  "My  friend  Mr.  Giles,"  he  says,  "will 
present  you  this.  He  is  particularly  desirous  of  being  known 
to  you.  I  should  not  presume  so  far  on  the  degree  of  your 
acquaintance  with  which  I  have  been  honored  as  to  introduce 
a  gentleman  to  your  attention  if  I  did  not  persuade  myself  that 
you  will  never  regret  or  change  any  favorable  opinion  you  may 
form  of  him."  If  Giles  took  the  liberty  of  reading  this  letter 
of  recommendation,  one  will  have  to  admit  he  had  good  reason 
for  his  almost  lifelong  and  bitter  enmity  to  the  great  Federalist 
lawyer.  All  men  of  prominence  were  not  as  reticent  about 
Giles's  qualifications  as  was  John  Marshall.  For  a  letter  from 
Edward  Carrington  to  Madison  follows  him  to  Philadelphia, 
and  is  interesting  enough  to  quote  in  full: 

"It  was  my  intention  to  have  committed  to  Mr.  Giles  the 
successor  of  Colo.  Bland  for  the  district31  in  which  I  reside, 
a  letter  of  introduction  to  you,  but  his  recovering  from  a  spell 
of  sickness  and  setting  out  for  Philadelphia  earlier  than  I 
expected  prevented  my  doing  so.  You  must  before  this  have 
formed  some  acquaintance  with  him  yet  I  cannot  forbear  to 
recommend  him  as  my  valuable  friend  to  your  particular  at 
tention — though  yet  a  very  young  man  he  has  acquired  high 
reputation  in  both  the  superior  and  inferior  Courts  of  this 
State — you  will  find  him  upon  trial  to  possess  real  genius. 

80  Madison  MSS.    Library  of  Congress. 

31  The  District  was  composed  of  the  following  counties:  Brunswick,  Sus 
sex,  Greensville,  Prince  George,  Dinwiddie,  Mecklenburg,  Lunenburg, 
Amelia,  Cumberland  and  Powhatan.  See  Act  of  Virginia  Legislature  passed 
November  20,  1788— Acts  1788,  4. 


FIGHTING  THE  FEDERALISTS  11 

acquired  knowledge,  and  solid  honesty  such  as  will  make  him  a 
valuable  coadjutor32  in  our  representation."3 

Although  Giles  entered  Congress  as  a  staunch  supporter  of 
the  new  government,  he  did  not  favor  a  government  strong  at 
the  expense  of  the  states  nor  a  government  dependent  on  stock 
jobbers  and  speculators.  Coming  from  the  upcountry  hills  of 
a  state  predominantly  rural,  chaperoned  by  James  Madison,  he 
would  find  no  difficulty  in  convincing  himself  that  the  cause  of 
the  Constitution  and  the  new  government  was  not  the  same  as 
the  cause  of  Hamilton's  policies.  He  was  ready  to  accept  all 
the  ideas  of  Jefferson,  to  throw  himself  eagerly  into  the  struggle 
against  the  "fearful  monarchical"  danger,  and  to  stand  guard 
over  Republican  principles.  He  reached  the  seat  of  the 
National  Legislature  too  late  to  take  part  in  the  first  fight 
on  Assumption,  bitterly  opposed  in  his  state,  but  he  found 
ample  opportunity  to  show  his  principles  and  powers  in  the 
third  session  of  the  First  Congress/4  which  he  entered  De 
cember  7,  1790. 

Placed  on  the  Committee  on  Military  Affairs35  at  the  be 
ginning  of  his  Congressional  service,  he  was  for  many  years  in 
House  and  in  Senate  to  hold  a  position  of  influence  in  the  dis 
cussion  of  military  policies.  On  December  16,  he  opposed  an 
amendment  to  the  militia  bill  on  the  ground  of  "improper  inter 
ference  with  the  authority  of  the  state  Government."  Thus 
he  sounded  the  keynote  of  much  of  his  career — defence  of  State 
Rights.  Though  departing,  as  we  shall  see,  from  this  principle 
at  times,  he  stood  by  it  with  more  than  the  usual  consistency  of 
a  politician.  For  it  he  was  to  make  his  last  tragic  struggle, 
when  Henry  Clay  and  John  Quincy  Adams  were  forming  an 
other  party,  which  was  to  inherit  Federalist  conceptions  of 
statesmanship. 

32  The  word  is  repeated  in  the  original. 

88  Madison   MSS.     Library  of  Congress. 

"However,  in  the  Second  Congress  he  fought  Hamilton's  recommen 
dations  for  "an  immediate  general  assumption."  Annals,  2nd  Cong.,  1st 
Sess.,  495.  •  "" 

^Annals,  First  Congress,  vol.  ii,  1971. 


12  WILLIAM  B.  GILES 

The  most  important  matters,  however,  engaging  the  atten 
tion  of  this  session  of  Congress  were  the  excise  and  the  National 
Bank.  On  December  13,  1790,  Hamilton  sent  to  Congress  two 
reports,  one  recommending  an  excise  on  the  manufacture  of 
spirituous  liquors,  the  other  recommending  the  establishment 
of  a  National  Bank.  On  the  first  bill  Giles  seemed  much  more 
vacillating  than  was  to  be  characteristic  of  him ;  he  had  as  yet 
not  found  himself.  At  first  seeming  to  favor  the  excise  on  the 
ground  of  necessity,  he  soon  urged  the  recommitment  of  the  bill 
in  order  that  its  defects  might  be  remedied.  He  favored  a  motion 
to  limit  the  period  of  the  excise  and  declared  he  was  afraid  there 
was  too  much  sympathy  in  the  House  with  public  creditors. 
Finally  he  swung  over  into  oppositon  to  the  measure,3"  and  had 
committed  himself  against  the  policies  of  Alexander  Hamilton. 
However,  the  bill  became  a  law  on  March  3,  1791.  Southern 
members  resisted  its  passage  as  long  as  possible ;  it  would,  they 
declared,  be  a  heavier  burden  on  the  south  than  on  the  other  sec 
tions  of  the  country.  North  Carolina,  they  claimed,  would 
have  to  pay  ten  times  as  much  as  Connecticut,  and  Virginia  and 
Georgia  would  suffer  in  like  degree. 

At  the  same  time  that  the  excise  bill  was  under  discussion, 
the  Bank  bill  was  also  before  Congress.  Against  it  the  Anti- 
Federalists  threw  their  strength.  Admitting  that  the  proposed 
bank  would  do  all  that  Hamilton  claimed  for  it — increase  the 
"active  capital,"  afford  the  Federal  Government  greater  facil 
ities  in  the  management  of  its  financial  operations,  and  provide 
a  medium  of  exchange  for  the  public,  one  must  concede  that 
there  were  grave  dangers  to  be  expected  from  its  establishment.87 
A  combination  of  government  and  individuals  in  a  large  finan 
cial  corporation,  however  expedient  otherwise,  was  certainly 
open  to  serious  abuses.  Large  opportunities  were  offered  for 
the  promotion  of  the  interests  of  legislators  of  a  financial  turn 
of  mind  or  their  friends,  and  the  concentration  of  the  moneyed 
resources  of  the  country  at  one  center  would  not  improbably 
be  a  drain  on  the  resources  of  remote  districts.  There  might, 

86  Annals    of   Congress,    First    Cong.,   3rd    Sess.,    1851,    1875,    1881,    1883, 
1884,  1971.     Madison  voted  for  it. 

87  Schouler,  History  of  the  United  States,  vol.  i,  175. 


FIGHTING  THE  FEDERALISTS  13 

from  the  point  of  view  of  a  Virginia  farmer,  be  unlimited  op 
portunity  for  the  northern  interests  to  expand  at  the  expense 
of  their  less  shrewd  and  less  favorably  situated  brethern  of  the 
south.  New  York  and  New  England,  the  proteges  of  Hamil 
ton's  various  financial  enterprises,  naturally  favored  the  Bank 
bill;  the  farmers  of  the  South  who  had  already  suffered  from 
the  scheming  beneficiaries  of  these  policies  could  but  view  this 
project  with  alarm.88  Then,  too,  banks  at  the  South  were  an 
unusual  spectacle  and  in  the  West,  the  ally  of  the  South,  they 
were  known  only  by  reputation.  Southern  and  western  people 
felt  no  need  for  financial  institutions,  and  least  of  all  for  an 
institution  which  enjoyed  special  privileges  and  could  maintain 
a  monopoly.  When  they  did  discover  a  use  for  banks,  they 
wished  local  banks,  representing  their  own  interests,  responding 
to  their  control,39  and  not  subject  to  the  restraining  influence 
of  a  great  moneyed  corporation.  To  his  dying  day  Giles 
viewed  with  suspicion  any  kind  of  bank  and  looked  with  bitter 
hostility  on  a  central  financial  corporation.40  The  opposition 

88  See  attitude  of  Patrick  Henry  who  controlled  Virginia  at  this  time. 
He  saw  in  Hamilton's  policies  a  subordination  of  southern  to  northern 
interests.  Henry's  Henry,  ii,  460. 

See  an  interesting  article  by  C.  A.  Beard  on  "Economic  Origins  of 
Jeffersonian  Democracy"  in  American  Historical  Review,  XIX,  282. 

Beard  says  (p.  294)  "The  major  portion  [of  Virginia  certificates  funded] 
had  been  bought  up  by  brokers  and  speculators  in  Virginia  towns  and  in 
Baltimore,  New  York,  Philadelphia,  and  other  financial  centers".  Vir 
ginians  received  in  1795  from  the  Federal  Government  $62,300,  while  citizens 
of  Massachusetts  received  $309,500. 

88  There  is  no  careful  study  of  banking  in  Virginia.  The  only  book  on 
the  subject  is  "A  History  of  Banks  and  Banking  Prior  to  the  Civil  War" 
by  William  L.  Roy  all,  N.  Y.  and  Washington,  1907.  Prior  to  1804,  accord 
ing  to  Royall,  there  was  no  banking  in  Virginia  carried  on  in  the  modern 
way.  There  were,  as  there  had  been  in  Colonial  and  Revolutionary  days, 
unchartered  banks.  In  1792,  with  apologetic  preambles,  the  Bank  of 
Alexandria  (Act  of  Nov.  23)  and  the  Bank  of  Richmond  (Act  of  Dec. 
23)  were  chartered.  The  latter  does  not  seem  to  have  been  established  or 
must  have  been  short-lived,  and  the  first  chartered  bank  to  be  permanently 
established  in  Richmond  was  the  Bank  of  Virginia  chartered  January  30, 
1804.  See  Christian,  W.  A.— "Richmond,  her  Past,  Present,  and  Future" 
59.  However,  by  act  of  December  10,  1795,  the  Bank  of  the  United  States 
was  authorized  to  establish  branches  in  Virginia. 

40  Giles  was  made  director  of  the  Bank  of  Virginia.  He  soon  retired. 
This  bank  was  presided  over  by  his  closest  friend,  A.  B.  Venable. 


14  WILLIAM  BRANCH  GILES 

of  the  Anti-Federalists  was,  therefore,  not  a  mere  artificial  and 
partisan  opposition  designed  for  factional  advantage  or  based 
on  mere  political  theory;  it  was  perfectly  conscientious,  per 
fectly  logical,  and  perfectly  in  harmony  with  the  desires  of  their 
constituents.  The  great  difficulty  was  their  inability  to  devise 
a  system  which  could  be  offered  as  an  adequate  substitute  for 
the  banking  system. 

On  the  subject  of  the  Bank,  Giles  spoke  February  7,  1791. 
As  the  Bank  was  to  be  the  theme  of  many  of  his  subsequent 
speeches  and  essays,  an  examination  of  his  views  on  this  occa 
sion  is  desirable.  He  attacked  both  the  constitutionality  of  the 
measure  and  its  expediency.  It  was,  he  said,  authorized  neither 
directly  nor  indirectly  by  the  Constitution.  Inference  from  no 
specific  clause  would  allow  it,  nor  would  a  proper  interpretation 
of  the  preamble,  or  the  general  welfare,  or  the  elastic  clause 
allow  it.  The  word,  "necessary,"  as  it  appears  in  the  eighteenth 
of  the  clauses  enumerating  the  powers  of  Congress,  meant  only 
"without  which  the  end  could  not  be  produced."  It  was  true 
that  the  context  of  the  Constitution  included  all  the  ends  of 
government,  but  the  execution  of  these  purposes  was  distributed 
between  state  and  nation.  This  was,  he  thought,  a  Federal,  not 
a  consolidated  government.  Constitutionality  did  not  grow 
out  of  "incidentally  to  the  mere  creation  and  existence  of 
government,"  nor  did  it  grow  out  of  expediency.  Such  doc 
trines,  if  accepted,  he  feared  would  have  evil  effects  on  the  po 
sition  of  the  states,  for  "their  dignity  and  consequence  will  not 
only  be  prostrated  by  it,  but  their  very  existence  radically  sub 
verted."  If  it  were  claimed  that  Congress  had  been  in  the  habit 
of  doing  unconstitutional  things,  it  was  high  time  to  make  a 
correction.  This  act,  he  declared,  was  an  unprovoked  advance 
in  the  scramble  for  authority  between  the  United  States  and 
the  individual  states.  A  continuance  in  such  a  policy  would  in 
crease  the  jealousies  of  the  people  and  would  result  either  in 
the  abandonment  of  the  policy  or  in  a  radical  change  in  the 
government.41 

41  Annals  of  Congress,  under  date,  Feb.  7,  1791. 


FIGHTING  THE  FEDERALISTS  15 

The  Bank  was  established  and  the  controversies  shifted  to 
other  policies.  Meanwhile,  however,  Jefferson  had  begun  to 
organize  his  followers  into  a  party.  It  was  not  sufficient  to 
fight  against  individual  measures  proposed  by  Hamilton.  The 
men  who  were  generally  found  on  the  side  opposite  the  financial 
dictator  must  be  fused  into  a  body,  with  one  soul  and  one  spirit, 
ready  to  combat  whatever  purposes  the  Secretary  of  Treasury 
might  choose  to  assert,  and  looking  ultimately  to  the  time  when 
they  themselves  should  be  able  to  dictate  the  policies  of  govern 
ment  and  fill  the  offices.  To  weld  together  the  forces  of  opposi 
tion  was  a  work  for  which  the  Secretary  of  State  was  wonder 
fully  endowed.  Possessed  of  tact  and  patience,  of  magnetism 
and  kindly  tolerance,  of  unusual  facility  in  smoothing  away 
party  differences  and  jealousies,  and  withal  endowed  with  gen 
uine  conviction  and  devotion  to  high  idealism,  Jefferson  was  the 
one  man  to  found  a  great  national  party.  Ignorant  of  the  com 
plex  and  effective  party  machinery  and  weapons  of  our  own  day, 
by  skillful  use  of  tongue  and  pen  in  the  quietest  of  ways  he 
brought  others  to  do  his  will  and  to  fight  the  men  and  the 
evils  he  hated.  In  Virginia  he  had  effectively  marshalled  his  up- 
country  farmers,  his  Baptists  and  Presbyterians,  and  abolished 
entails  and  primogeniture  and  established  freedom  of  religion. 
Piedmont  and  western  Virginia  in  1776  was  but  a  prototype 
of  the  Piedmont  and  Transmontane  regions  of  the  United  States 
in  1791.  Why  not  bind  the  rest  of  the  nation  together  to  fight 
the  battle  of  Democracy,  as  the  west  of  Virginia  had  been  bound 
together  to  fight  in  a  smaller  field  that  same  battle?  The  same 
men  who  hated  primogeniture  and  entails  and  wished  absolute 
equality  for  all  religious  sects,  suffered  when  northern  and 
eastern  speculators  cheated  them  out  of  their  securities,  when 
excises  were  placed  on  their  liquor,  and  when  a  great  moneyed 
corporaton  was  created  to  control  credit.  And  just  as  they  had 
hated  the  councellors  and  bigwigs  who,  assembled  at  state  cap- 
itols,  refused  to  grant  representation  fair  to  the  western  sec 
tion,  so  they  hated  executive  influence  in  the  nation — and  Presi 
dential  levees.  Seething  with  discontent  over  one  measure  after 
another  proposed  by  the  new  government,  which  many  of  them 


16  WILLIAM  B.  GILES 

had  wished  never  to  see  established,  they  were  ready  to  flock  to 
the  standard  of  one  who  believed  as  they  did  and  who  knew  how 
to  battle  for  their  rights.  The  basis  of  Jefferson's  new  party 
was  the  discontent  of  men  who  had  already  fought  against  po 
litical  and  religious  monopoly  at  home — who  now  thought  they 
felt  the  choking  hand  of  political  and  financial  monopoly  stran 
gling  the  nation.  Jefferson  found  ready  to  help  in  the  labor  of 
making  this  discontent  effective  for  the  accomplishment  of 
practical  results  James  Madison,  Albert  Gallatin,  Nathaniel 
Macon,  and  by  no  means  least,  William  B.  Giles — the  best 
practical  politician  of  them  all.42  To  the  cause  of  Jefferson, 
Giles  gave  a  resourcefulness  and  boldness  unsurpassed  by  the 
greatest  of  them,  and  a  talent  for  effective  speech  unequalled 
by  an}r  other  man  in  the  Congress  of  his  day. 

Giles's  first  experience  in  Congress  was  evidently  satisfactory 
to  his  constituents,  for  he  returned  without  difficulty  to  the 
Second  Congress.  On  his  return  to  Congress  in  October,  he 
launched  into  the  debates  with  vigor,  fearlessness  and  at  times, 
ferocity.  The  bitter  tongue  and  biting  words  of  William  B. 
Giles  have  often  been  described  by  historians,  particularly 
by  those  residing  in  the  northeastern  corner  of  the  country. 
Few  of  the  men,  it  must  be  admitted,  whose  oratory  has  re 
sounded  in  legislative  halls  have  so  frequently  and  unreserved 
ly  spoken  exactly  what  they  thought  with  such  entire  disregard 
of  consequences  or  of  the  feelings  of  opponents.  Few  men 
have  made  more  bitter  enemies  or  had  less  charity  shown  them 
by  critics  and  historical  writers  than  this  same  outspoken 
Virginia  statesman.  Washington,  Hamilton,  Monroe,  Gallatin, 
Madison,  Henry  Clay,  and  John  Quincy  Adams  among  the 
greater  characters  in  American  history  were  at  one  time  or 
another  the  recipients  of  his  taunts  and  denunciations.  Before 
the  Second  Congress  had  adjourned  he  had  found  subjects  and 
characters  worthy  of  his  forceful  vocabulary.  But  in  studying 
the  career  of  this  vigorous,  erratic,  and  often  uncharitable 
debater,  one  must  be  ever  on  guard  not  to  be  misled  by  his 

42  This  is  the  opinion  of  Timothy  Pickering  given  in  a  letter  to  John 
Marshall,  January  24,  1826.  Mass.  Hist.  Society,  Pickering  MSS. 


FIGHTING  THE  FEDERALISTS  17 

manner  of  speech.  He  was  not  always  wrong  when  his  tongue 
was  sharp.  It  often  was  his  hatred  of  what  he  considered  fraud 
and  his  devotion  to  what  he  considered  the  fundamental  rights 
of  the  states  and  the  people  that  made  him  overzealous  in  their 
cause.  In  this  character  he  was  to  figure  in  the  session  now 
to  begin. 

Congress  opened  October  24,  1791,  and  Giles  was  present  at 
the  beginning.  The  chief  party  conflict  of  the  first  session  was 
the  struggle  over  the  reapportionment  of  representation.  The 
Constitution  had  arbitrarily  fixed  the  representation  for  the 
time  being  as  was  necessary  in  the  absence  of  a  census  of  the 
population.  But  a  census  was  to  be  taken  within  three  years 
after  the  first  meeting  of  Congress,  and  thereafter  representa 
tion  should  not  exceed  one  for  every  thirty  thousand  of  popula 
tion.43  Such  a  census  had  been  taken  in  1790,  and  now  the  prob 
lem  of  apportionment  gave  trouble;  the  followers  of  Jefferson 
in  the  House  desired  to  enlarge  their  body  in  order  to  improve 
the  condition  of  their  party  and  to  increase  the  influence  of  the 
House  as  compared  with  other  departments  of  government. 
They  favored,  therefore,  an  apportionment  on  the  basis  of 
30,000,  a  ratio  which  would  permit  a  House  of  113  members 
as  against  the  present  house  of  sixty-nine,  and  would  produce 
a  result  favorable  to  the  South.44  On  such  a  question  there 
could  be  but  one  position  for  Giles ;  on  November  14  he  delivered 
a  speech  in  favor  of  one  representative  for  every  thirty  thousand 
people,  and  returned  to  the  same  subject  on  April  9,  1792. 
To  him  the  adoption  of  a  ratio  of  apportionment  was  a  vital 
matter.  Involved  in  it  was  nothing  less  than  the  fight  of  the 
people  against  plutocracy  and  of  pure  republicanism  against 
its  present  betrayers.  "The  revolutions  in  property  in  this 
country,"  he  asserted,  "have  created  a  prodigious  inequality  of 
circumstances.  Government  has  contributed  to  this  inequality ; 
the  Bank  of  the  United  States  is  a  most  important  machine  in 
promoting  the  objects  of  this  moneyed  interest.  The  Bank  will 
be  the  most  powerful  engine  to  corrupt  this  House.  Some  of 

48  The  United  States  Constitution,  Art.  I,  sect.  2,  par.  3. 
"Schouler,  i,  206. 


18  WILLIAM  BRANCH  GILES 

the  members  are  directors  of  this  institution;45  and  it  will  only 
be  by  increasing  the  representation  that  an  adequate  barrier 
can  be  opposed  to  this  moneyed  interest."  Also  he  declared: 
"The  strong  executive  of  this  Government  ought  to  be  balanced 
by  a  full  representation  in  this  House."46  On  April  9,  he  as 
serted  that  the  natural  tendency  of  all  representative  govern 
ment  was,  through  the  inequalities  in  the  distribution  of  wealth, 
to  move  from  republicanism  to  monarchy;  and  the  government 
through  the  manipulation  of  the  public  debt,  the  assumption 
of  state  debts ;  the  creation  of  a  sinking  fund  had  stimulated 
"this  growing  inequality  in  the  distribution  of  wealth."  He 
openly  espoused  the  cause  of  the  "agricultural  or  equalizing 
interest."  He  contended  that  it  was  a  question  whether  the 
"simplicity,  chastity,  and  purity"  of  republicanism  be  pre 
served  or  whether  the  Government  would  "prostitute  herself  to 
the  venal  and  borrowed  artifices  and  corruptions  of  a  stale 
and  pampered  monarchy,"  and  that  "whatever  his  own  opinions 
or  suspicions  may  be  respecting  the  tendency  of  the  present 
administration,"  he  hoped  that  increased  representation  "will 
favor  an  effective  resistance  to  the  pressure  of  the  whole  vices 
of  the  administration,  and  may  yet  establish  the  government 
upon  a  broad,  permanent,  and  republican  basis."  In  true 
Jeffersonian  fashion,  studying  the  desires  of  the  people,  he  en 
deavored  to  show  that  they  expected  the  ratio  of  one  to  30,000. 
In  answer  to  the  charge  that  such  a  ratio  would  work  a  disad 
vantage  to  some  of  the  states,  he  pointed  out  that  representa 
tion  in  the  Senate  had  been  to  their  advantage.  On  account  of 
the  manner  of  representation  in  the  Senate  a  minority  of  con 
stituents  might  give  the  law  to  the  maj  ority ;  this  had  happened 
in  almost  every  important  measure.47  How  just  was  this  argu 
ment  made  by  Giles  may  be  seen  by  reference  to  the  census  of 
1790  wherein  Virginia  is  shown  to  have  a  population  of  747,610, 
nearly  twice  as  large  as  that  of  any  other  state  and  twelve  times 
as  large  as  the  state  of  Delaware,  and  yet  each  had  two  votes 
in  the  upper  house.  A  bill  passed  the  House  in  the  form  the 

46  This  was,  of  course,  true. 

"Annals,  Second  Cong.,  1st  Sess.,  178-179.   (November  14,  1791). 

*7  Annals,  Second  Cong.,  1st  Sess.,  543-548. 


FIGHTING  THE  FEDERALISTS  19 

Republicans  desired — the  Senate  changed  the  ratio  to  that  of 
1  to  33,000.  On  a  disagreement  of  the  two  houses  the  bill  was 
lost.  A  second  bill  was  vetoed  by  the  President — his  first  ex 
ercise  of  that  power — and  a  third  bill  providing  a  ratio  of  1  to 
33,000  became  law.48  According  to  this  law  the  membership 
of  the  House  became  105  instead  of  113,  as  the  House  desired, 
and  the  representation  of  Virginia  was  increased  from  ten  to 
nineteen. 

Another  bill  became  law  during  this  session,  the  discussion 
of  which  gave  Giles  an  opportunity  to  display  his  customary 
antipathy  to  favoritism  by  government.  This  bill  was  one  for 
the  encouragement  of  the  bank  and  cod  fisheries,  proposing  to 
substitute  for  the  drawback  on  salt  used  in  canning  fish  for 
exportation  a  bounty  on  ships  engaged  in  the  fisheries.  Giles, 
though  not  inclined  to  push  his  opposition  too  far,  found  dif 
ficulty  in  seeing  the  constitutionality  of  bounties.  Besides  he 
considered  them  economically  bad  and  very  truly  said  if  an 
occupation  was  productive  it  needed  no  bounty,  and  that  giving 
it  an  artificial  advantage  lessened  the  wealth  of  the  country.  In 
the  minds  of  those  who  have  seen  the  experience  which  the 
country  has  had  since  the  Civil  War  and  now  view  the  present 
uprising  against  special  privileges  to  particular  industries,  the 
following  sentence,  though  a  little  strong,  must  strike  a  re 
sponsive  chord:  "Bounties,"  he  says,  "in  all  countries  and  at 
all  times,  have  been  the  effect  of  favoritism;  they  have  only 
served  to  direct  the  current  of  industry  from  its  natural  chan 
nel,  into  one  less  advantageous  or  productive ;  and  in  fact,  they 
are  nothing  more  than  governmental  thefts  committed  upon  the 
rights  of  one  part  of  the  community,  and  an  unmerited  govern 
mental  munificence  to  the  other.  In  this  country,  and  under 
this  Government,  they  present  an  aspect  peculiarly  dreadful 
and  deformed."*9 

If  Giles  was  opposed  to  bounties  and  privileges  for  others, 
he  wished  none  for  himself.  When  an  act  relating  to  the  postal 
system  of  the  country  was  under  consideration,  he  opposed 

48  Schouler,  i,  206. 

48  Annals,  Second  Cong.,  1st  Session,  397-400,     Feb.  8,  1792. 


20  WILLIAM  B.  GILES 

granting  the  franking  privilege  to  members  of  Congress.  He 
saw  in  it  "an  exemption  from  a  pecuniary  obligation" — and  the 
principle  he  considered  as  "dangerous."  Congressmen  were 
not  to  be  subject  to  the  same  duty  that  was  imposed  on  their 
constituents,  and  this  was  what  struck  him  as  "highly  dan 
gerous."50 

The  climax  of  the  attacks  on  Hamilton  and  his  policies  came 
in  the  second  session  of  the  Second  Congress,  and  Giles  led  the 
fight.  In  a  discussion  of  the  question  whether  the  Secretary  of 
the  Treasury  should  be  asked  to  frame  a  plan  for  the  reduction 
of  the  debt,  he  declared  "some  of  the  measures  recommended 
by  the  Secretary  of  the  Treasury  discovered  a  princely 
ignorance  of  the  country,  for  the  wants  and  wishes  of  one  part 
had  been  sacrificed  to  the  interest  of  the  other."51  When  a  bill 
was  presented  in  accordance  with  the  recommendation  of  Ham 
ilton,  providing  for  the  negotiation  of  a  new  loan  for  the  pay 
ment  of  the  debt  of  $2,000,000  due  by  the  Government  to  the 
Bank  of  the  United  States,  Giles  proclaimed  himself  averse  to 
increasing  our  debt  by  any  new  loans  and  advocated  the  sale  of 
the  government  stock  in  the  bank  in  order  to  raise  the  money.52 
The  result  of  the  opposition  was  the  failure  of  the  bill  and 
the  substitution  of  one  providing  for  only  $200,000  for  the  in 
stallment  of  the  debt  then  due.53  But  the  most  conspicuous  part 
played  by  the  Virginia  member  was  his  presentation  of  the  two 
famous  sets  of  resolutions  of  January  and  February  1793  di 
rectly  and  formally  attacking  the  Secretary's  conduct  of  the 
business  of  his  department.  It  was  doubtless  an  effort  to  drive 
Hamilton  from  the  cabinet.54  On  December  27,  1792,  while  the 
bill  was  under  consideration  authorizing  the  President  to  bor 
row  $2,000,000  for  the  reimbursement  of  the  Bank  of  the 
United  States,  Giles  had  offered  a  resolution  calling  on  the 
President  to  send  to  the  House  a  statement  in  regard  to  the 
loans  made  by  his  authority  and  the  manner  in  which  they  had 

60  Annals,  298. 

61  Annals,  Second  Cong.,  2nd  Sess.,  706. 

62  Ibid,  753. 

53  Act,  March  2,  1793. 
"Bassett,  Federalist  System,  104. 


FIGHTING  THE  FEDERALISTS  21 

been  expended.55  In  answer  to  this  and  other  resolutions  Ham 
ilton  had  sent  down  a  report.  Not  satisfied  with  it  Giles  came 
forward  on  January  23  with  a  series  of  five  resolutions.56 
Copies  of  the  papers  authorizing  certain  loans  were  called  for, 
the  names  of  persons  by  whom  and  to  whom  the  French,  Span 
ish,  and  Dutch  debts  had  been  paid  were  asked  with  dates  of 
drafts  and  payments,  a  statement  of  semimonthly  balances 
between  the  United  States  and  the  Bank  down  to  the  end  of 
1792  was  demanded,  and  an  account  of  the  sinking  fund  and 
the  balance  of  unapplied  revenues  through  1792  was  required. 
In  explanation  of  the  presentation  of  these  resolutions,  he 
announced  what  everybody  certainly  knew  by  this  time  that 
"impressions  resulting  from  my  inquiries  into  this  subject, 
have  been  made  upon  my  mind,  by  no  means  favorable  to  the 
arrangements  made  by  the  gentleman  at  the  head  of  the  Treas 
ury  department."  Congress  had  been  legislating  for  some  years 
"without  competent  official  knowledge  of  the  state  of  the  Treas 
ury,"  and  despite  this  "have  engaged  in  the  most  important 
fiscal  arrangements."  He  stood  in  the  attitude  of  an  inquirer 
and  was  open  to  conviction.57 

These  resolutions  of  January  23,  1793,  are  now  generally 
attributed  to  the  suggestion  of  Jefferson  and  to  the  pen  of 
Madison,  and  Giles  is  represented  as  their  tool  in  presenting 
them.  It  is  doubtless  true  that  Jefferson  was  behind  them  and 
Madison  made  a  draft  of  them.  But  the  assumption  that  Giles 
was  a  mere  automaton  responding  to  the  pull  of  these  men  or  of 
any  others  cannot  be  held  for  a  moment  by  any  man  who  has 
studied  the  career  of  the  very  able  and  self-confident  politician 

85  Annals,  Second  Cong.,  2nd  Sess.,  761.  A  succession  of  resolutions  of 
inquiry  were  offered — one  by  Parker  of  Virginia  on  December  24,  directing 
the  Secretary  of  the  Treasury  "to  lay  before  the  House  an  account  of  the 
application  of  the  moneys  borrowed  in  Antwerp  and  Amsterdam  for  the 
United  States,  during  the  present  year;"  on  Dec.  27,  that  referred  to 
above;  on  Dec.  31,  directing  the  Secretary  of  the  Treasury  and  the  Secretary 
of  War  to  lay  before  the  House  lists  of  persons  employed  by  them  with 
salaries  of  each  officer. 

66  Annals  of  Congress. 

^Annals,   Second  Cong.,  2nd   Sess.,  840. 


22  WILLIAM  BRANCH  GILES 

who  introduced  these  resolutions.68  Giles  was  on  intimate  terms 
with  Jefferson  and  Madison  and  seemed  to  have  one  element 
of  superiority  over  either,  and  that  was  an  unflinching  courage. 
The  resolutions  and  those  that  followed  were,  as  we  shall  see, 
disastrous  for  the  proposers.  Giles  deserves  to  share  the  blame 
equally  with  Jefferson  and  Madison  for  a  mistaken  and  un 
timely  partisan  move. 

In  answer  to  these  resolutions  came  three  letters59  from  Ham 
ilton  purporting  to  answer  the  questions  asked  and  justifying 
his  conduct.  Not  confining  himself,  however,  to  the  presenta 
tion  of  information  he  imprudently  gave  rein  to  his  temper, 
declaring  the  resolutions  "were  not  moved  without  a  pretty 
copious  display  of  the  reasons  on  which  they  were  founded", 
which  "were  of  a  nature  to  excite  attention,  to  beget  alarm,  to 
inspire  doubts."  He  claimed  that  he  had  acted  for  the  good 
of  the  country  but  admitted  a  technical  violation  of  the  laws 
authorizing  the  loans.  He  thought,  however,  that  to  have  acted 
otherwise  than  he  did  would  have  been  at  the  sacrifice  of  pub 
lic  advantage. 

Giles  returned  to  the  attack  on  February  27  with  a  series  of 
nine  resolutions  drawing  from  the  reports  of  the  Secretary  in 
ferences  unfavorable  to  that  official.60  The  first  declares  that 
it  is  essential  to  proper  administration  that  laws  making  specific 
appropriation  be  strictly  obeyed;  the  second  that  a  violation 

68  Ford,  P.  L.,  Nation,  Sept.  5,  1895;  Hamilton,  Republic,  v,  181,  204; 
Schouler,  United  States,  i,  216-220;  McMaster,  United  States,  ii,  115-119; 
Gay,  Madison,  197-199;  Lodge,  Works  of  Hamilton,  ii,  342,  note,  where 
Giles  is  called  "tool"  of  Jefferson  and  Madison. 

59  Reports  dated  Feb.  4,  Feb.  13,  Feb.  14. 

80  A  draft  of  these  resolutions  is  found  in  Ford's  Writings  of  Jefferson, 
vi,  168;  they  differ  in  certain  important  details  from  the  resolutions  as 
actually  presented  by  Giles,  Feb.  27.  See  Annals  under  dates  given  in 
the  text.  But  the  inference  drawn  by  Ford  as  to  Giles's  inability  to  draw 
them  is  ludicrous.  He  says  "Giles  has  been  more  often  abused  than  praised, 
but  neither  critics  nor  apologists  have  ever  questioned  if  he  had  ability 
to  frame  what  he  moved,  or  have  searched  for  a  more  likely  author  of 
them.  A  rough  draft  of  the  resolutions  in  the  handwriting  of  Thomas 
Jefferson  furnishes  a  suggestion  too  strong  to  be  disregarded."  Giles  during 
his  life  drew  hundreds  of  documents  requiring  more  ability  than  did  these. 

Hamilton  in  Republic  v,  204  (note)  says  Giles  told  Rufus  King  that 
Madison  wrote  these  resolutions.  However,  Hamilton  gives  no  authority. 


FIGHTING  THE  FEDERALISTS  23 

of  such  a  law  is  a  violation  of  the  constitutional  provision 
that  no  money  should  be  drawn  from  the  Treasury  except  by 
Congressional  appropriation.  The  third  declares  that  Hamil 
ton  had  violated  a  law  authorizing  a  loan  for  the  payment  of 
the  foreign  debt  by  using  a  portion  of  it  in  the  payment  of 
the  interest  on  the  loan  itself  and  by  drawing  a  portion  of  it 
into  this  country  without  instructions  from  the  President.  The 
fourth  asserted  he  had  exceeded  the  instructions  of  the  Presi 
dent  in  making  the  loans.  The  other  resolutions  declared  that 
the  Secretary  failed  to  give  proper  information  to  Congress  of 
drafts  of  money  from  abroad,  and  in  so  doing  omitted  an  es 
sential  duty  of  his  office,  that  he  had  wrongfully  negotiated  a 
loan  with  the  Bank  of  the  United  States  when  there  was  a 
greater  sum  in  the  Bank  to  the  Credit  of  the  Government,  that 
the  Secretary  had  been  guilty  of  indecorum  in  judging  of  the 
motives  of  the  House  in  calling  for  information.  A  final  reso 
lution  ordered  a  copy  of  these  resolutions  to  be  transmitted 
to  the  President.  A  debate  on  these  propositions  occurred  the 
next  day.  The  first  fight  was  on  the  manner  of  their  considera 
tion.  Giles  desired  a  reference  to  the  Committee  of  the  whole 
House.  The  Federalists  opposed  this  for  lack  of  time  and  de 
nounced  the  proceeding  as  "unhandsome"  and  the  mode  "tyran 
nical."6  Finally  all  but  the  first  and  second  resolutions  which 
dealt  with  abstract  questions,  and  the  ninth  which  proposed  to 
send  the  resolutions  to  the  President  were  referred  to  the  Com 
mittee  of  the  whole  House.  Some  of  their  leading  defenders 
were  Giles,  Madison,  and  Findley  of  Pennsylvania. 

The  speech  of  Giles  made  on  the  first  day  of  the  debate  is 
not  given  in  the  Annals.62  Speakers  defending  Hamilton  were 
Ames  of  Massachusetts,  who  later  was  to  immortalize  himself 
by  his  defence  of  the  Jay  Treaty,  and  two  Federalist  members 
from  South  Carolina,  Barnwell  and  William  Smith.63  Smith 
was  an  able  man,  but  he  did  not  on  occasion,  however,  think  it 
unworthy  to  deliver  verbatim  a  speech  written  by  Alexander 
Hamilton,  and,  according  to  Jefferson,  he  had  made  a  fortune 

"Speech  of  Vans  Murray. 

62  It  is  referred  to  next  day. 

68  Ames  and  Smith  were  both  directors  of  the  Bank,  Schouler,  i,  198. 


24  WILLIAM  B.  GILES 

by  means  of  "tips"  from  Hamilton  during  the  debates  o(n  the 
assumption  of  state  debts.64  On  March  1,  the  votes  were  taken; 
overwhelming  defeat  met  each  resolution.  When  the  third  had 
been  defeated,  a  desire  was  expressed  to  withdraw  the  others. 
This  request  was  not  allowed,  and  so  the  painful  process  contin 
ued,  becoming  more  and  more  painful  until  the  eighth  resolution 
was  rejected  by  a  vote  of  34  to  7.  Only  five  men  in  the  House 
voted  for  all  the  resolutions.  Counting  every  man  who  voted  for 
any  one  of  them,  there  were  only  seventeen  supporters  of  the 
proceedings  and  seven  of  these  were  from  Virginia.65  These  reso 
lutions  were  popular  in  Gile's  own  state;  meetings  held  at  the 
time  attest  the  sympathy  there  felt  for  the  attack  made  on  the 
Secretary.  Virginia,  even  good  Federalists  could  not  fail  to 
observe,  was  seething  with  discontent.  But  the  triumph  of 
Hamilton  was  complete — a  triumph  thrown  into  the  faces  of  his 
assailants  when  at  the  next  session,  on  the  ground  that  insuffi 
cient  time  had  been  given  for  the  investigation,  he  asked  for  a 
repetition  of  the  inquiry.  The  attack  of  Giles  was  unfortunate 
and  the  discomfiture  of  the  assailants  undoubted.  It  is  also  no 
doubt  true  that  the  assault  was  partly  due  to  other  motives 
besides  patriotic  devotion  to  the  interests  of  the  country.  It 
was  ill-timed  and  the  fight  was  not  well  managed.  But  to  one 

64  He   bought   up   a  quantity   of  state   notes   and   told  his   friends   that 
money   could   be   made  by   speculation   in  them.      Phillips   in   Amer.    Hist. 
Review,  xiv,  732,  note. 

65  Jefferson  comments  on  the  result,  March  3,  1793,  in  a  letter  to  Thomas 
Mann    Randolph,   Writings    (Ford)    vi,    194 — "Mr.    Giles    and    one    or    two 
others  were  sanguine  enough  to  believe  that  the  palpableness  of  the  truths 
rendered   a   negative   of   them  impossible,   and   therefore    forced    them   on. 
Others  contemplating  the  character  of  the  present  house,  one  third  of  which 
is  understood  to  be  made  up  of  bank  directors  and  stock  jobbers  who  would 
be  voting  on  the  case  of  their  chief:  and  another  third  of  persons  blindly 
devoted  to  that  party,  of  persons  comprehending  them  but  too  indulgent 
to  pass  a  vote  of  censure,  foresaw  that  the  resolutions  would  be  negatived 
by  a   majority  of   two   to   one.     Still   they   thought   that   the   negative   of 
palpable  truth  would  be  of     service,  as  it  would  let  the  public  see  how 
desperate   and   abandoned   were   the   hands   in   which   their   interests    were 
placed.    The  vote  turned  out  to  be  what  was  expected,  not  more  than  3  or  4 
varying  from  what  had  been  conceived  of  them."     Jefferson   thought  the 
decision  would  be  revised  at  the  next  session.    Note  that  Jefferson  says  these 
resolutions  were  "prepared"  by  Giles  and  intimates  that  Giles  against  his 
(Jefferson's)  better  judgment  brought  them  forward. 


FIGHTING  THE  FEDERALISTS  25 

who  will  view  the  matter  impartially,  the  conduct  of  the  Secre 
tary  was  not  such  as  to  allay  suspicion.  He  did  not  make 
"orderly  and  serviceable  records  of  the  progress  and  condition 
of  the  debt;"  "he  was  impatient  of  restraints  and  preferred  to 
make  reports  in  his  own  way  and  season  ;"6  in  carrying  out  his 
plans  he  did  violate  the  letter  of  the  law;  he  had  been  irritable 
in  his  answers  to  Congress ;  confident  of  his  own  devotion  to  the 
public  welfare  and  seeing  no  reason  for  paying  too  close  heed  to 
the  representatives  of  the  people,  for  whom  he  had  little  respect, 
he  had  too  little  regard  for  their  opinion ;  there  was  a  close  and 
unsavory  connection  between  him  and  the  "interests ;"  he  was 
not  averse  at  times  to  using  his  influence  and  his  knowledge  of 
public  finance  for  the  advantage  of  his  friends  ;67  and  men 
representing  the  farmers  of  the  South,  victims  already  of  his 
beneficiaries,  were  not  unnaturally  distrustful  of  his  actions. 
However  unwise  at  times  the  particular  attacks  made  on 
Hamilton,  and  however  unfounded  some  of  the  suspicions 
against  his  integrity,  nevertheless  the  hostility  of  Jefferson, 
Madison,  Giles,  and  the  Republicans  was  healthful.  Careless  of 
the  rights  of  the  states,  distrustful  of  our  form  of  government 
and  of  the  people  whom  it  recoginized  as  sovereign,  admiring  too 
greatly  the  British  Constitution  to  be  perfectly  obedient  to  his 
own,  too  self-confident,  too  little  regardful  of  the  means  by 
which  a  righteous  end  was  to  be  accomplished,  seeing  too  plainly 
the  advantage  of  the  favor  of  the  rich  without  divining  the 
dangers  of  too  close  a  reliance  on  the  wealthy,68  Hamilton  stood 
for  conservation  versus  idealism,  business  versus  human  rights, 
and  for  the  commercial  centers  versus  rural  communities.  He 
had  built  up  at  congressional  party  composed  of  those  who 
profited  by  his  financial  schemes  and  who  were  not  unwilling  to 
legislate  in  their  own  interest.  The  fight  against  him,  though 
sometimes  inopportune,  was  at  bottom  the  never  ending  fight  of 
the  people  and  the  interests. 

MDewey,  Financial  History  of  the  United  States,  115-116. 

87  Schouler,  i,  217-218.    Beard  in  "An  Economic  Interpretation  of  the  Con 
stitution  of  the  United  States",  attempts  to  exonerate  Hamilton  (100-114). 
But  the  admissions  of  Mr.  Beard  and  the  facts  given  by  him  seem  to  me 
to  lead  to  an  opposite  conclusion  from  that  drawn  by  him. 

88  See  the  characterization  of  Schouler  cited  above. 


26  WILLIAM  BRANCH  GILES  . 

In  one  other  investigation  during  this  second  Congress,  Giles 
played  an  important  part.  That  was  the  investigation  of  the 
causes  of  the  defeat  of  St.  Clair  by  the  Indians.  In  the  first 
session  Giles  had  offered  the  resolution  for  the  investigation 
and  had  been  placed  on  the  committee  though  not  as  chairman.69 
The  first  report  exonerated  St.  Clair  entirely,  and  threw  the 
blame  on  Knox  and  Hamilton,  Secretaries  of  War  and  Treas 
ury  respectively.  Concluding  with  a  statement  of  the  principal 
causes  of  the  failure  of  the  expedition,  the  Committee  found 
them  in  the  delay  with  which  materials  were  furnished,  the 
"mismanagement"  of  the  Quartermaster's  and  Contractor's 
Departments,  and  in  the  "lateness  of  the  season  at  which  the 
expedition  was  undertaken."  They  "conceive  it  but  justice  to 
the  Commander  in  Chief,  to  say,  that  in  their  opinion,  the 
failure  of  the  late  expedition  can  in  no  respect  be  imputed  to 
his  conduct,  either  at  anytime  before  or  during  the  action ;  but 
that  as  his  conduct  in  all  preparatory  arrangements,  was 
marked  with  peculiar  ability  and  zeal,  so  his  conduct  during 
the  action  furnished  strong  testimony  of  his  coolness  and 
intrepidity."  The  report  was  severely  criticized  and  referred 
again  to  the  committee  of  which  Giles  was  now  made  chairman. 
An  ambiguous  supplementary  report  made  such  changes  as  to 
calm  the  indignation  of  the  friends  of  Knox  and  Hamilton.70 

During  the  spring  and  summer  after  the  adjournment  of 
Congress,  Giles  visited  a  few  days  at  a  time  at  that  Mecca  of 
Virginia  Republicanism,  Port  Royal,  the  home  of  John  Taylor 
of  Caroline,  recently  appointed  successor  to  Richard  Henry 
Lee  in  the  Senate  of  the  United  States.  With  Giles  were 
Hawkins,  Senator  from  North  Carolina,  Nathaniel  Macon,  and 
on  his  second  visit,  his  closest  friend,  Venable  of  Virginia.71 
Taylor  was  a  strict  constructionist  of  the  deepest  dye,  who  had 
opposed  Hamilton's  financial  schemes,  and  favored  the  resolu 
tions  of  investigation  and  censure. 

69 Annals,  Second  Cong.,  1st  Sess.,  490-494. 

T0  State  Papers,  Military  Affairs,  i,  36-38  and  41-44. 

71  See  Letters  of  Taylor  to  Madison.  Branch  Historical  Papers  of 
Randolph-Macon  College,  1908,  254-258.  The  same  issue  has  a  valuable 
sketch  of  Taylor's  career  by  Professor  W.  E.  Dodd. 


FIGHTING  THE  FEDERALISTS  27 

The  opening  of  the  Third  Congress,  December  2,  found  Giles 
in  his  seat  prepared  for  action.  The  questions  at  issue  were 
to  be  different  from  those  of  the  preceding  two  Congresses.  No 
opportunity,  it  is  true,  to  harass  the  arch-enemy,  Alexander 
Hamilton,  was  to  be  neglected  even  though  the  great  work  of 
the  Secretary  of  the  Treasury  had  been  done  and  the  current 
of  thought  was  turning  from  domestic  mainly  to  foreign  re 
lations.  But  the  difficulty  we  now  found  in  adopting  a  firm 
national  policy  was  to  be  discovered  in  the  system  which  Ham 
ilton  had  built  up.  The  French  Revolution  had  advanced  head 
long  until  the  King  had  been  beheaded,  a  republic  declared,  and 
a  war  with  England  assumed.  The  French  remembered  their 
treaty  of  alliance  made  with  the  United  States  in  1778  when 
we  were  at  war  with  the  same  power  with  which  they  were  now 
at  war — a  treaty  which  had  not  been  abrogated — and  they 
forgot  neither  our  debt  to  them  nor  our  beautiful  expressions 
on  liberty  when  we  were  conducting  our  revolution.  Genet, 
the  French  Minister,  loaded  with  commissions  for  privateers, 
eager  to  take  advantage  of  our  factional  contests  and  demo 
cratic  enthusiasm,  landed  at  Charleston  and  made  a  triumphal 
advance  to  Philadelphia  only  to  be  met  by  a  repudiation  of 
the  treaty  of  1778  as  interpreted  by  the  French,  a  refusal  to 
pay  money  before  it  was  due,  a  declaration  of  neutrality  in 
the  conflict,  and  finally  a  rejection  of  the  Minister  himself. 
England,  on  the  other  hand,  had  only  tardily  sent  us  a  minister ; 
had  captured  our  seamen,  had  violated  the  neutrality  of  our 
ships,  and  had  rejected  proposals  of  our  government  for  a 
treaty  of  commerce.  In  the  discussions  that  were  to  take  place 
in  Congress  on  the  subject  of  our  international  relations,  Giles 
was  to  avow  openly  his  friendship  with  France,  was  to  favor 
all  means  of  resisting  England  and  to  lament  the  decline  of 
national  spirit,  and  was  to  lose  no  opportunity  to  sally  forth 
against  the  character  and  policies  of  the  administration.  The 
President's  message  did  not  attempt  to  conceal  the  evil  conduct 
of  the  British  Government  and  a  report  from  Jefferson  afforded 
detailed  information  of  the  restrictions  on  our  commerce  and 


28  WILLIAM  B.  GILES 

made    recommendations    of    retaliatory    duties    against    such 
nations  as  treated  us  unfairly.72 

To  carry  out  the  intention  of  these  recommendations,  Madi 
son  came  forward  on  January  3,  1794  with  resolutions  pro 
viding  for  increased  duties  against  countries  having  no  com 
mercial  treaty  with  us.73  Against  the  adoption  of  these  resolu 
tions  appeared  William  Smith  of  South  Carolina,74  Ames, 
Tracy,  Vans  Murray,  Hillhouse,  and  the  rest  of  the  prominent 
Federalists ;  for  them  spoke  Samuel  Smith  of  Maryland,  Find- 
ley  and  Smilie  of  Pennsylvania,  and  the  Virginians.  Giles  spoke 
early  in  the  debate,  before  new  revelations  of  British  orders 
had  lashed  the  anti-British  feeling  into  fury.75  Defending  Jef 
ferson's  report,  denouncing  Great  Britain,  praising  France,  he 
at  the  same  time  seized  occasion  to  strike  at  Hamilton  and  to 
point  out  again  the  connection  of  the  moneyed  interest  with 
the  Government.  "Some  say,"  he  declares,  "that  the  adoption 
of  this  policy  of  retaliation  will  mean  a  tax  on  our  con 
stituents,  others  that  it  will  mean  a  diminution  of  our  revenue." 
But  "this,"  he  continued,  "was  not  the  language  of  America 
at  the  time  of  the  Declaration  of  Independence.  Whence,  then 
this  change  of  American  sentiment?  Has  America  less  ability 
than  she  then  had?  Is  she  less  prepared  for  a  national  trial 
than  she  then  was?  This  cannot  be  pretended.  There  has 
been,  it  is  true,  one  great  change  in  the  political  situation. 
America  has  now  a  funded  debt;  she  had  no  funded  debt 
at  those  glorious  epochs.  May  not  this  change  of  sentiment 
therefore,  be  looked  for  in  the  change  of  situation  in  this  re 
spect?  May  it  not  be  looked  for  in  the  imitative,  sympathetic 
organization  of  our  funds  with  the  British  funds?  May  it  not 
be  looked  for  in  the  indiscriminate  participation  of  citizens 
and  foreigners  in  the  emoluments  of  the  funds?  May  it  not  be 
looked  for  in  the  wishes  of  some  to  assimilate  the  Government 

72  Report  dated  December  16,  made  in  pursuance  of  resolutions  of  the 
House,  Feb.  23,  1791. 

78  Text  in  Annals,  Third  Cong.,  1st  Sess.,  155.  Petition  from  Virginia 
in  favor  of  the  resolutions,  Annals,  484. 

174  In  a  speech  written  by  Hamilton,  Hamilton,  J.  Ct,  Republic,  v,  450. 

:B  Schouler,  i,  282. 


FIGHTING  THE  FEDERALISTS  29 

of  the  United  States  to  that  of  Great  Britain,  or  at  least 
in  the  wishes  of  some  for  a  more  intimate  connection? 

"If  these  causes  exist,  it  is  not  difficult  to  see  that  the  in 
terests  of  the  few  who  receive  and  disburse  the  public  contri 
butions,  are  more  respected  than  the  interests  of  the  great 
majority  of  the  society  who  furnish  the  contributions.  It  is 
not  difficult  to  see  that  the  Government,  instead  of  legislating 
for  a  few  millions,  is  legislating  for  a  few  thousands  and  that 
the  sacredness  of  their  rights  is  the  great  obstacle  to  a  great 
national  exertion."''6  This  language  was  the  language  of  Giles's 
constituents  as  well  as  of  himself — they  hated  Great  Britain, 
would  not  have  objected  to  a  war  with  her.  For  France  they 
had  a  corresponding  sympathy.77 

In  addition  to  the  other  reasons  for  resentment  against  Great 
Britain,  another  appeared  in  the  renewed  depredations  on  our 
commerce  by  Algerian  corsairs  released  from  the  Mediterranean 
through  a  truce  made  with  Algiers  by  the  British  Consul 
General.78  A  bill  for  the  creation  of  an  American  navy,  suf 
ficient  to  cope  with  the  dangers  to  which  our  commerce  was 
exposed  by  this  new  alarm,  was  with  some  inconsistency  op 
posed  by  the  erratic  Virginia  statesman.  He  placed  the  blame 
for  the  Algerian  difficulties  on  Great  Britain,  when  he  declared, 
"the  cheapest  mode  of  getting  peace  will  certainly  be  by  em 
bracing  commercial  regulations."  He  forgot  the  highly  patri 
otic  words  he  had  uttered  on  January  23,  and  was  innocent  of 
what  the  future  was  to  bring  forth,  when  he  now  objected  to  the 
establishment  of  a  navy  on  the  ground  that  it  would  facilitate 
the  enlargement  of  expense  and  taxation,  "The  system 

78Annals,  Third  Cong.,  1st  Sess.,  274-290. 

77  See  letter  of  J.  G.  Jefferson  to  Thomas  Jefferson,  dated  Amelia  (Giles's 
home  county),  March  22,  1794: — "Mr.  Madison's  resolutions  have  rendered 
him,  in  this  part  of  the  country,  more  popular  than  any  measure  he  could 
have  taken.     I  believe  the  people  in  this  and  the  adjoining  counties  might 
be  easily  reconciled  to  a  war  with  Great  Britain;   and,  so  great  is  their 
sympathy  for  the  French,  that  I  have  heard  some  of  the  leading  characters 
declare,  that,  even  if  there  was  a  rupture  between  France  and  their  own 
country,  that  they  would  refuse  to  bear  arms."     Quoted  in  J.  C.  Hamilton's 
Republic,  v,  520.    Jefferson,   April  3,   to  Madison  wrote  that   the  people 
of  Virginia  were  ready  for  war.    Randall,  ii,  227. 

78  Schouler,  i,  281. 


30  WILLIAM  BRANCH  GILES 

of  governing  by  debts  he  conceived  the  most  refined  system  of 
tyranny  .  .  .  devised  by  politicians  to  succeed  the  old 
system  of  feudal  tenures."  "He  should  value  his  liberty  at 
a  lower  price  than  he  did  now,  if  the  policy  of  a  permanent 
naval  establishment  should  obtain  in  the  United  States."7  The 
bill,  however,  was  passed  and  the  beginning  of  the  navy  of  the 
United  States  provided  for. 

Excitement  grew.  Extreme  measures  against  England  were 
considered  by  Republicans ;  Federalists  talked  disunion,80  Day 
ton  of  New  Jersey  not  hitherto  known  for  radical  positions  came 
forward  on  March  27  with  resolutions  providing  for  the  seques 
tration  of  all  debts  due  by  American  citizens  to  British 
creditors  as  a  pledge  of  indemnification  to  Americans  suffering 
for  British  spoliations.  The  following  day  Giles  arose  in  the 
defense  of  these  resolutions.  Reprisal  was  within  our  power, 
he  thought ;  all  other  means  of  redress  without  our  power.  "In 
such  a  state  of  things  reprisal  is  a  right — reprisal  is  a  duty." 
Coming  to  the  defence  of  France,  he  was  "extremely  hurt  that 
the  conduct  of  France  should  be  unnecessarily  and  unoppor- 
tunley  arraigned  in  that  (this)  House;"  "why,"  he  asked, 
"irritate  the  only  nation  in  the  world  who  could  afford  them 
(the  U.  S.)  any  substantial  assistance?"  The  conduct  of 
France  was,  according  to  him,  a  result  of  necessity  and  would 
probably  be  explained.81  Besides  we  had  sufficient  means  of 
indemnification  against  France — the  debt  we  owed  her.  He 
could  not  sit  down  without  some  remarks  on  our  past  policy. 
What  had  been  the  effect  of  neutrality?  It  had  produced  in 
stead  of  peace  new  aggressions.  But  even  if  this  conduct  had 
been  heretofore  wise  and  pacific,  experience  had  taught  us  that 
it  was  no  longer  so;  nothing  could  be  expected  from  the  in 
justice,  the  honor,  or  the  moderation  of  a  court,  which  had 
proved  itself  equally  a  stranger  to  them  all;  but,  before  such  a 

79  For  these   quotations   see   Annals,   Third   Cong.,   1st   Sess.,   436,   447, 
486,  492,  497   (Feb.  6  and  Mar.  10). 

80  See  "A  Confidential  Memorandum",  hitherto  unpublished,  written  by 
John  Taylor  of  Caroline,  Senator  from  Virginia,  for  James  Madison.  Edited 
with  an  introduction  by  Gaillard  Hunt,  Washington,  1905. 

81McMaster,  ii,  168,  says  the  "French  were  equally  culpable." 


FIGHTING  THE  FEDERALISTS  31 

tribunal,  acquiescence  would  beget  injuries,  injuries  would  be 
get  insults,  and  insults  would  beget  contempt  and  degradation, 
and  war.82  Giles  also  voted  for  the  resolutions  of  Mr.  Clark 
of  New  Jersey  providing  that  until  proper  restitution  should 
be  made  to  American  citizens  and  the  western  posts  should 
be  given  up  "all  commercial  intercourse  between  citizens  of 
the  United  States  and  the  subjects  of  the  King  of  Great  Britain, 
so  far  as  the  same  respects  articles  of  the  growth  or  manufac 
ture  of  Great  Britain  or  Ireland,  shall  be  prohibited.83  The 
resolutions  much  amended  passed  the  House  only  to  be  rejected 
by  the  Senate  by  the  casting  vote  of  the  Vice-President. 

Such  measures  as  proposed  by  Dayton  and  Clark  would  have 
meant  war.  This  the  administration  did  not  desire,  whatever 
might  be  the  feeling  of  the  country.  Eastern  Federalists  of 
the  type  of  Cabot,  Strong,  Ellsworth,  and  King  agreed  on  a 
mission  to  England,  and,  despite  the  utter  inappropriateness 
of  selecting  the  detested  leader  of  a  great  party  whose  work 
could  not  command  the  respect  of  a  large  section  of  people, 
and  of  sending  abroad  at  this  period  the  recognized  friend  of 
Great  Britain  and  the  enemy  of  France,  chose  as  the  envoy, 
Hamilton  who  was  soon  to  retire  into  private  life.84  Protests 
from  Republicans  poured  in  upon  Washington85  and  forced  him, 
if  he  had  ever  had  the  serious  intention  of  proposing  the  name 
of  the  Secretary  of  the  Treasury,86  to  give  up  the  intention 
and  substitute  the  Chief  Justice  of  the  United  States.  Less 
obnoxious  than  would  have  been  the  appointment  of  Hamil 
ton,  the  selection  of  the  Chief  Justice  was  not  without  serious 
objection.  That  the  head  of  our  greatest  court  could  be 
allowed  an  extended  absence  in  a  foreign  country  might  be  only 
a  testimony  to  the  paucity  of  litigation  in  those  unsophisticated 
days;  but  that  the  same  hand  should  write  our  treaties  which 
might,  before  the  ink  was  dry,  be  compelled  to  apply  them  in 

"Annals,  544,  547. 

88  Annals,  April  7  (introduced),  April  21   (passed). 

"Schouler,  i,  284. 

"McMaster,  ii,   187. 

M  Lodge,  Washington,  i,  177  says  he  was  first  choice  and  Hamilton 
withdrew  at  the  outcry.  But  see  Bassett,  Fed.  System,  124  and  King's, 
King  i,  518. 


32  WILLIAM  B.  GILES 

adjudication  was  certainly  not  in  accord  with  American  ideas  of 
the  separation  of  the  legislative  and  judiciary  departments.  The 
nomination  was  confirmed  by  the  Senate  on  the  nineteenth  of 
April.  The  House  had  nothing  to  do  with  the  nomination; 
but  that  did  not  prevent  expressions  of  opinion — and  Giles  did 
not  delay  announcing  his  disgust  at  the  procedure.  On  the 
ninth  of  May  he  gave  his  opinion  of  the  mission.  He  "had 
heard  much  about  negotiation.  This  was  the  universal  cry  of 
a  certain  description  of  people.  An  envoy  had  been  appointed 
to  the  Court  of  London  to  negotiate,  and  this  measure  seemed 
to  imply  an  appeal  to  the  generosity  and  magnanimity  of  the 
British  nation" ;  but  it  seemed  to  him  "a  perfect  burlesque  of 
common  sense  to  draw  any  conclusions  of  British  generosity".87 
Having  renewed  his  touch  with  the  pure  principles  of  Re 
publicanism  by  frequent  visits  to  Jefferson  during  the  summer 
of  1794,88  Giles  was  in  Congress  again  on  November  7,  1794. 
The  most  interesting  subject  on  which  he  spoke  at  this  session 
was  the  Democratic  societies  which  had  been  active  during  the 
summer.  One  such  society  in  Virginia  had  been  particularly 
violent — the  Democratic  Society  of  Wythe  County.  Meeting 
on  the  fourth  of  Juty  at  the  Court  House,  they  denounced  the 
late  Congress  for  cowardliness  in  the  presence  of  insults  and 
injuries  and  arrayed  themselves  against  the  despotism  involved 
in  the  union  of  executive,  legislative,  and  judicial  powers  in  the 
hands  of  the  envoy  to  Great  Britain,  the  Chief  Justice  of  the 
United  States.89  "Shall  we  Americans,"  they  ask,  "who  have 
kindled  the  spark  of  liberty,  stand  aloof  and  see  it  extinguished, 
when  burning  a  bright  flame  in  France,  which  hath  caught  it 
from  us !  If  a  despot  prevails,  we  must  have  a  despot  like  the 
rest  of  the  nations.  If  all  tyrants  unite  against  free  people, 
should  not  all  free  people  unite  against  tyrants?  Yes,  let  us 
unite  with  France  and  stand  or  fall  together."  They  also 

"Annals,  May  9,  1794  (669). 

88  The  Life  of  Thomas  Jefferson  by  George  Tucker,  London,  1837,  2  vols., 
i,  470. 

89  Peter  Porcupine— A  little  Plain  English  Addressed  to  the  People  of 
the  United  States  on  the  Treaty.     (Phila.,  1795)  104-105.     McMaster,  ii,  177, 
American  Daily  Advertiser,  August  2,  1794. 


FIGHTING  THE  FEDERALISTS  33 

proposed  "so  to  amend  the  Constitution  as  to  incapacitate  any 
man  to  serve  as  President  for  more  than  eight  years  succes 
sively."  Societies  throughout  the  country  were  equally  as 
radical.  When  the  President  delivered  his  address  at  the  open 
ing  of  Congress,  telling  the  story  of  the  famous  Whiskey  Re 
bellion  in  Pennsylvania  and  the  measures  adopted  during  the 
recess  of  Congress  for  the  suppression  of  the  movement,  he 
reproached  certain  "combinations  of  men''  for  the  manner  in 
which  they  had  conducted  themselves.90  A  motion  to  condemn 
these  societies — self-created  societies  as  they  were  called — was 
offered  in  the  House,  during  the  consideration  of  the  reply  to 
be  made  the  President,  and  Giles  took  upon  himself  the  task 
of  opposing  such  a  measure.91  Every  individual  in  the  United 
States,  according  to  him,  was  a  member  of  a  self-created  so 
ciety.  Religious  organizations,  for  instance,  deserved  the  name, 
"self-created"  society.  If  the  intention  was  to  censure  Dem 
ocratic  societies,  why  not,  he  asked,  do  the  same  by  the  Cin 
cinnati  Society?  Congress  had  no  right  to  attempt  to  check 
public  opinion ;  if  these  societies  violated  the  law  then  bring  the 
charge  against  them.  If  something  must  be  censured,  why  not 
censure  landjobbing,  paper  money,  etc.  Denouncing  them  in 
Congress  could  do  no  good — it  would  give  these  societies  more 
importance  than  they  deserved.  He  had  nothing  to  do  with 
them  and  was  not  even  acquainted  with  the  persons  concerned 
with  their  original  formation.  Returning  to  the  contest,  he 
found  it  necessary  to  enter  into  his  own  defence.  "He  had 
been,"  he  said,  "an  object  of  calumny,  misrepresentation  and 
abuse."  He  would  go  on  and  do  his  duty,  preserve  dignity  of 
conduct,  and  "treat  abuse  with  silent  contempt."  Accused  of 
cpntinued  criticisms  of  the  measures  of  the  Government,  he 
replied:  "Pay  off  the  public  debt,  and  I  assure  you  that  my 

90  Richardson,  Messages  and  Papers,  I,  166.  Washington  was  much  alarmed 
by  the  Democratic  societies.     He  said  if  they  were  not  counteracted  or  did 
not  fall  into  disesteem,  "they  would  shake  the  government  to  its  foundation." 
Letter  to  Henry  Lee,  August  26,  1794.     Writings  of  Washington,   (Ford) 
xii,  455. 

91  The  expression  "self-created  societies"  was  used  by  the  Senate  in  their 
answer  to  the  President,  Nov.  24,  1794.  Annals,  Third  Cong.,  2nd  Sess.,  899- 
901.    Again  915-919. 


34  WILLIAM  BRANCH  GILES 

censures  of  Government  shall  be  at  an  end."  Others  followed 
Giles  in  the  defence  of  the  societies,  and  in  the  end  killed  the 
clause  of  censure  which  the  enemies  of  the  societies  desired 
placed  in  the  answer.  But  neither  Giles  nor  anyone  else  could 
preserve  them  longer.  Unable  to  stand  the  reproof  of  Wash 
ington  and  the  end  of  the  Terror  in  France,  they  lost  their 
influence  and  died. 

The  only  other  business  in  which  Giles  took  much  interest 
during  the  Third  Congress  was  an  amendment  offered  by  him 
self  to  the  naturalization  laws  requiring  titled  foreigners  to 
renounce  their  titles  before  being  allowed  the  rights  of  citizen 
ship.  In  the  disturbed  condition  of  Europe,  crowds  of  for 
eigners,  many  bearing  titles,  had  come  for  refuge  to  this  coun 
try.  In  Europe  a  revolution  was  going  on,  "to  which  there 
was  nothing  similar  in  history."  A  large  portion  of  Europe 
had  already  declared  against  titles,  and  where  the  innovations 
were  to  stop  no  man  could  presume  to  guess.  These  things 
we  know  and  so  Giles  knew  them.  But  as  he  pointed  out  there 
was  nothing  in  this  "land  of  the  free"  to  prevent  titled  for 
eigners  who  came  here  from  voting  or  even  coming  into  the 
House  with  the  full  glamour  of  titled  diginit}^.92  At  first  the 
Federalists  were  inclined  to  treat  this  amendment  as  trifling93 
and  provoked  Giles  so  much  by  their  ridicule  that  he  withdrew 
it  only  to  offer  it  again  the  following  day.94  However,  it  soon 
dawned  upon  them  that  political  capital  could  be  made  of  the 
opportunity,  so  Dexter  of  Massachusetts  offered  a  further 
amendment  providing  for  a  renunciation  of  slaves  by  foreigners 
as  a  condition  of  naturalization.95  A  debate  then  occurred  on 
the  effect  this  proposal  would  have  upon  southern  slave  prop 
erty.  "It  was  calculated,"  says  Giles,  "to  injure  the  property 
of  gentlemen."  Proceeding  he  gave  his  opinion  of  slavery  at 
this  time,  the  opinion  generally  held  in  Virginia  as  to  slavery. 
He  "lamented  and  detested  it;  but,  from  the  existing  state  of 

92  Annals,  Third  Cong.,  2nd  Sess.,  1034. 

93  Madison's  opinions  given  in  a  letter  to  Pendleton,  January  8,  1795,  and 
to  Jefferson.    Madison,  Works  (Cong.  Ed.)  II,  30,  32. 

01  Annals,  Third  Cong.,  2nd  Sess.,  1031,  1032,  1034. 
*  Ibid,  1039. 


FIGHTING  THE  FEDERALISTS  85 

the  country,  it  was  impossible  at  present  to  help  it.  He  him 
self  owned  slaves.  He  regretted  that  he  did  so,  and  if  any 
member  could  point  out  a  way  in  which  he  could  be  properly 
freed  from  that  situation,  he  should  rejoice  in  it.  The  thing 
was  reducing  as  fast  as  could  be  prudently  done.  He  believed 
that  slavery  was  infinitely  more  deprecated  in  countries,  where 
it  actually  existed,  and  consequently  where  its  evils  were  known, 
than  in  other  countries  where  it  was  only  an  object  of  con 
versation."9  The  anti-slavery  amendment  was  thrown  out,  the 
amendment  of  Giles  was  passed,  and  in  the  act  of  January  29, 
1795,  it  was  required  of  an  alien,  in  addition  to  other  quali 
fications  that  he  renounce  any  title  of  nobility  he  might 
possess.97 

96  Annals,  January  1,  1795,  1039. 

97  Section  I  (clause  4)  of  that  act 


CHAPTER  III 
THE  JAY  TREATY 

While  the  events  recorded  in  the  preceding  chapter  were 
taking  place,  the  Chief  Justice  had  departed  for  England  and 
was  negotiating  a  treaty.  Arriving  at  the  British  capital  in 
June,  1794,  he  had  been  favorably  received  but  had  found  the 
British  ministry  obdurate  as  to  the  main  demands  of  the  United 
States.  By  the  end  of  November,  however,  a  treaty  had  been 
arranged  which,  reaching  this  country  four  days  after  Congress 
had  adjourned,  was  on  June  8  submitted  by  the  President  to  an 
extra  session  of  the  Senate.  Ratified  by  that  body,  with  the 
exception  of  the  famous  twelfth  article,  by  only  the  required 
majority,  it  was  returned  on  June  24  to  Washington  for  his 
acceptance  or  rejection.  The  sessions  of  the  Senate  were  of 
course  secret,  but  the  contents  of  the  instrument  were  soon  made 
public.  Guesses  as  to  its  contents  and  erroneous  statements 
were  made,  until  finally  the  entire  document  was  revealed  by 
Senator  Mason  of  Virginia.98  The  gravest  fears  of  the  people 
were  found  to  be  well-grounded.  The  western  posts  were  to  be 
surrendered  by  Great  Britain  but  not  until  June  1,  1796;  no 
remuneration  was  given  to  Americans  for  negroes  carried  off 
in  violation  of  the  supposed  meaning  of  the  treaty  of  1783;" 
no  pledge  was  made  by  Great  Britain  to  abstain  in  the  future 
from  impressment  of  American  seamen;  the  Mississippi  River 
was  to  be  opened  to  British  trade ;  the  United  States  should 
compensate  Great  Britain  for  confiscated  debts  of  the  American 
Revolution  and  for  the  captures  made  by  Genet's  privateers 
in  1793.  The  West  Indian  trade,  which  Jay  had  been  instructed 
to  secure,  was  granted  only  to  American  ships  of  seventy  tons 
burden,  on  the  condition  that  the  West  Indian  trade  of  the 
United  States  should  be  entirely  free  to  British  vessels  and 
that  American  vessels  should  not  carry  to  any  port  in  the  whole 

98  Mason  and  Tazewell  had  voted  against  it.     Mason  became  a  hero.     For 
an  interesting  sketch  of  Mason  see  Grigsby's  Convention  of  1788. 

99  On  the  relation  of  the  Treaty  to  Slavery,  see  Am.  Hist.  Assoc.  Report, 
1901,  275. 


THE  JAY  TREATY  37 

world  except  their  own  molasses,  sugar,  coffee,  cocoa,  and  cot 
ton.100  In  return  for  the  East  Indian  trade,  opened  to  the  United 
States  under  certain  conditions,  we  opened  all  our  ports  and 
gave  up  any  right  to  lay  further  restrictions  on  English  com 
merce.  Citizens  of  both  countries  as  well  as  Indians  were  to  be 
allowed  to  pass  freely  across  the  international  boundary  line 
and  to  carry  on  trade  and  commerce.  No  duties  were  to  be 
levied  by  either  party  on  peltries  carried  across  the  line  and  In 
dians  going  in  either  direction  were  to  pay  no  imposts  on  "their 
own  proper  goods  and  effects  of  whatever  nature." 

The  principle  that  free  ships  make  free  goods  was  not  main 
tained.  The  list  of  contraband  articles  was  extended  to  in 
clude  tar,  pitch,  turpentine  and  even  provisions  upon  certain 
conditions ;  the  sequestration  of  debts  was  prohibited. 

What  had  our  government  secured?  Payment  for  recent 
captures  of  our  vessels,  the  promise  that  compensation  in  the 
future  would  be  given  for  provisions  seized  as  contraband  of 
war,  peace  and  friendship  with  Great  Britain.101  Had  the 
British  written  the  treaty  without  the  presence  of  an  American 
negotiator,  they  would  have  asked,  it  seemed  to  good  Republi 
cans,  for  little  more  or  given  little  less  than  was  written  in  the 
treaty  negotiated  by  Jay.  On  account  of  the  concessions 
granted  by  the  United  States  to  English  vessels  capturing 
prizes,  the  treaty  could  not,  even  if  it  were  otherwise  satisfac 
tory,  please  France  or  her  friends  in  America.  It  was  not  even 
pleasing  to  Jay  himself  nor  to  Hamilton — it  was  acceptable 
only  in  lieu  of  war,  which  to  us  would  have  been  little  less  than 
disastrous. 

As  soon  as  the  contents  of  the  treaty  were  known,  the  people 
of  the  country  rose  in  indignation.  Many  had  not  waited  for 
a  detailed  knowledge  of  the  document.  Every  act  of  Jay's 
from  the  time  of  his  setting  out  to  the  exposure  of  the  result 
of  his  work  was  subject  to  abuse.  The  secrecy  in  which  the 
articles  were  held  was  regarded  as  an  insult  to  the  people.  And 

00  The  stipulations  analyzed  in  this  sentence  were  contained  in  the  famous 
twelfth  article  struck  out  by  the  Senate. 

101  See  the  analysis  made  by  Schouler,  i,  305-308.  Text  in  Senate,  Doc., 
357,  Sixtieth  Cong.,  2nd  Sess.,  590. 


38  WILLIAM  BRANCH  GILES 

now  that  Mason  had  actually  made  known  what  it  contained 
the  people  grew  wild.  Meetings  were  held  in  all  the  important 
cities  and  the  treaty  and  its  framer  denounced.  Jay  was  burned 
in  effigy  and  Hamilton,  attempting  the  treaty's  defence,  was 
stoned  at  a  public  meeting.  Resolutions  from  all  over  the 
country  pleaded  with  the  President  to  refuse  his  signature.10' 
Virginia  was  not  behind  the  other  states  in  her  popular  out 
burst.  A  meeting  in  Richmond  July  29,  1795,  over  which  pre 
sided  the  eminent  lawyer  and  teacher,  Chancellor  Wythe, 
adopted  resolutions  denouncing  the  treaty  as  "insulting  to  the 
dignity,  injurious  to  the  interest,  dangerous  to  the  security, 
and  repugnant  to  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States."1 
They  declared  that  one  hundred  to  one  the  people  were  opposed 
to  the  treaty,  and  believed  that  the  Constitution  meant  to  re 
quire  ratification  by  two-thirds  of  the  citizens  of  the  United 
States  rather  than  by  a  bare  two-thirds  of  the  Senate.104  Reso 
lutions  also  came  from  Norfolk,  Powhatan,105  Caroline,  and 
Giles's  home  county,  Amelia.106  Giles,  on  October  29,  1795,  in 
Petersburg,  saw  a  memorial  against  the  treaty  being  circulated 
by  handbills  and  in  the  newspapers,  for  the  purpose  of  being 
signed  in  the  neighboring  counties  as  well  as  in  the  city  itself.107 
The  elections  of  1795  reflected  the  spirit  of  the  people.  Vir 
ginians  pointed  out  the  unconstitutionality  of  the  treaty,  and 
deprecated  the  invasion  made  by  it  into  the  domain  of  legis 
lative  authority.  But  we  may  be  sure  practical  questions  were 
closer  to  the  hearts  of  our  Virginians  than  mere  matters  of 
constitutional  law.  They  were  indignant  that  our  seamen  were 
still  left  at  the  mercy  of  the  British  press  gang.  They  saw 
with  indignation  the  provision  made  for  the  payment  of  debts 
owed  by  our  citizens  to  British  creditors  and  did  not,  on  the 

102  See  the  dramatic  account  by  McMaster  of  these  meetings,  vol.  ii,  213, 
seq. 

103  Richmond  and  Manchester  Advertiser,  July  30,  1795.   Magruder's  Mar 
shall,  98.     Lodge,  Washington,  ii,  191.     McMaster,  ii,  226.     At  a  subsequent 
meeting  in  Richmond,  Marshall  spoke. 

104  Richmond  and  Manchester  Advertiser,  Aug.  6,  1795. 

105  McMaster,  ii,  226.    Annals,  Fourth  Cong.,  1st  Sess.,  161-171. 

106  Richmond  and  Manchester  Advertiser,  Aug.  15  and  Sept.  15. 

107  Letter  of  Giles  of  Oct.  29,  1795.     Jefferson  MSS.,  Library  of  Congress. 


THE  JAY  TREATY  39 

other  hand,  fail  to  note  the  omission  of  any  stipulation  requir 
ing  payment  by  the  British  for  slaves  carried  off  at  the  end  of 
the  Revolution.  They  thought  it  unreasonable  that  the  Missis 
sippi  should  be  freely  open  to  our  neighbors,  that  these  should 
be  allowed  to  continue  their  fur  trade  with  the  Indians  across 
the  international  boundary,  and  saw  only  danger  for  our  fron 
tiers  in  the  opportunity  allowed  the  British  for  tampering  with 
the  American  redskins.  They  found  no  good  reason  for  the 
delay  in  surrendering  British  posts  in  the  western  regions.  They 
resented  a  sacrifice  of  their  West  Indian  trade.  Virginians 
were  opposed  to  the  Jay  Treaty  because  it  sacrificed  Virginia 
and  southern  and  western  interests. 

Some  of  these  questions  were  of  real  importance  to  Giles's 
state,  particularly  the  negro  question.  The  state  of  Virginia 
had  suffered  desperately  during  the  Revolution.  Property  had 
been  destroyed  or  carried  off  and  portions  of  the  country  dev 
astated.  If  Jefferson  be  correct  it  had  lost  more  negroes 
than  any  other  state.108  In  the  six  months  of  1781,  Corn- 
wallis,  according  to  the  same  authority,  carried  off  30,000 
slaves ;  about  27,000  of  these,  however,  died  of  fever  and  small 
pox.  The  entire  loss  to  the  state  for  depredations  during  the 
war  amounted  to  3,000,000  pounds  sterling.109  Many  citizens 
suffered  greviously.  A  petition  from  one  Miles  Wilkinson, 
dated  November  21,  1782,  complains  that  seventy  of  his  slaves 
had  been  carried  off  by  the  British.110  One  Thomas  Wishart 
states  to  the  legislature  that  by  August,  1779  he  had  lost  the 
whole  of  his  negroes.11  A  Committee  of  the  House  of  Delegates, 
appointed  in  1783  to  inquire  into  the  subject  of  British  infrac 
tion  of  the  Treaty  of  1783,  in  their  report  quoted  from  Wash 
ington  to  the  effect  that  General  Carleton  under  a  "false  con 
struction"  of  the  treaty  had  sent  off  "large  numbers  of  the 
said  slaves  to  Nova  Scotia".112  The  same  report  presented  the 
testimony  of  slave  owners  from  Virginia  who  had  gone  in  person 

108  Am.  St.  Pap.,  For.,  i,  207. 

109  Jefferson,  Writings   (Washington  Edition)   II,  4,27. 

110  Petitions  of  Norfolk  County.     MSS.  in  Va.  State  Library. 

111  Journal  of  the  House  of  Delegates,  Nov.  6,  1789. 

mSee  letter,  May  7,  1783,  vol.  7,  Writings  of  Washington  (Ford),  241- 
244. 


40  WILLIAM  B.  GILES 

to  New  York  in  1783  to  demand  the  surrender  of  their  negroes 
only  to  be  refused  by  the  British  commander.11" 

The  resentment  of  Virginia  against  the  British  was  well 
founded.  Virginians  knew  naught  about  what  the  international 
law  of  1901  would  say  about  the  matter ;  they  knew  that  their 
property  had  been  carried  off  in  violation  of  what  were  under 
stood  to  be  the  terms  of  the  treaty  of  1783  and  that  the 
British  showed  no  disposition  to  pay  for  their  negroes.  How 
important  an  embarrassment  to  Virginia  were  the  British  re 
strictions  on  the  West  Indian  trade  of  the  United  States  is 
not  generally  understood.  Before  the  Revolution,  however,  a 
close  connection  between  the  islands  in  the  Caribbean  and  the 
exporting  communities  of  Virginia  was  very  close.  When  this 
connection  was  limited  after  the  Revolution  by  British  restric 
tions  on  our  trade,  the  merchants  of  Virginia  suffered  and 
grumbled.  A  petition  from  citizens  of  Norfolk,  dated  No-» 
vember  4,  1785,  tells  the  story  in  heightened  colors.114  They 
declare  that  the  present  state  of  trade  "is  laboring  under  many 
evils  and  disadvantages  in  consequence  of  its  being  monopo 
lized  by  Foreigners,  particularly  British  Merchants  and 
Factors."  That  "in  consequence  of  the  total  prohibition  laid 
on  the  Trade  of  the  United  States  to  the  British  West  India 
Islands  and  other  Ports  in  North  America  by  the  British  Acts 
of  Navigation,  there  is  at  present  not  only  a  rapid  decrease 
in  the  number  of  American  Bottoms  but  a  total  stop  is  already 
put  to  that  valuable  branch  of  Business,  Shipbuilding  (so 
profitable  to  this  State  in  General),  whereby  the  great  number 
of  mechanics  usually  employed  in  that  Branch  are  reduced  to 
the  greatest  distress  and  we  conceive  that  a  total  loss  of  Amer 
ican  Seamen  must  also  ensue  as  the  American  Merchants  find 
themselves  necessitated  to  lay  their  vessels  by  the  Walls  or 
pursue  a  trade  attended  with  nothing  but  loss  and  disgrace. 
While  the  Ships  of  that  Country  from  whom  those  restrictions 
arise  are  admitted  freely  into  all  our  ports  with  every  privilege 
of  the  vessels  of  our  own  colonies,  except  a  triffling  difference 
of  Tunnage." 

118  Journal  of  the  House  of  Delegates,  June  14,  1784. 

m  Petitions  of  Norfolk  County,  MSS.  in  Va.  State  Library. 


THE  JAY  TREATY  41 

These  merchants,  seamen,  and  producers  of  Virginia  had 
looked  forward  to  a  satisfactory  commercial  treaty  with  Eng 
land.  After  ten  years  a  treaty  had  been  secured  but  a  treaty 
affording  little  relief.  The  navigation  of  the  Mississippi  and 
the  fur  trade  with  the  Indians  were  jealously  guarded  by  that 
increasing  number  of  citizens  of  the  region  lying  beyond  the 
mountains  where  the  Ohio  and  its  tributaries  led  to  the  Mother 
of  Waters.  Many  westerners  could,  therefore,  not  brook  the 
concession  of  these  valuable  privileges  to  Englishmen  and 
Canadians,  nor  could  they  reconcile  themselves  to  the  delay 
allowed  the  British  in  the  surrender  of  western  posts.113  The 
party  of  Jefferson  could  not  fail  to  fight  with  every  weapon 
against  the  encroachments  on  the  rights  of  the  Transmontane 
frontiersmen.  They  must  be  held  in  loyalty;  on  them  the 
party  depended.  Every  step,  therefore,  in  the  negotiation  and 
ratification  of  the  treaty  was  watched  with  keen  interest  south 
of  the  Potomac. 

There  was  another  article  to  which  great  objection  was 
raised  —  an  article,  as  it  turned  out,  vitally  interesting  to  Vir 
ginia.  I  refer  to  the  ninth  article  which  stipulated  that  British 
subjects  who  held  land  in  the  United  States  and  American  citi 
zens  who  held  land  in  his  majesty's  dominions  should  continue 
to  hold  them  and  might  grant,  sell,  or  devise  such  lands  in  the 
same  way  as  could  natives;  and  that  neither  they  nor  their 
heirs  or  assigns,  should,  so  far  as  respects  these  lands,  be 
regarded  as  aliens.  On  the  very  day  on  which  the  treaty  was 
signed  by  the  negotiators,  papers  with  regard  to  various  es 
tates  formerly  held  by  British  citizens  in  America  —  including 
the  Fairfax  lands  —  were  presented  by  Lord  Grenville  to  Mr. 


U5 


That  delay  had  been  already  without  valid  excuse.  Although  the  treaty 
of  1783  bound  Great  Britain  to  a  surrender  of  the  posts,  she  had  even  before 
the  ratification  of  that  treaty  determined  to  hold  them.  For  two  years  she 
wras  indifferent  to  our  violations  of  the  treaty.  After  the  formation  of  the 
Federal  government  protection  was  given  her  interests  in  the  U.  S.  courts 
and  she  had  no  valid  excuse  for  the  retention  of  the  posts.  See  McLaughlin 
in  Am.  Hist.  Assoc.  Report,  1894.  The  surrender  of  the  posts  even  under 
the  conditions  stated  in  the  treaty  was  very  pleasing  to  western  New  York, 
it'  not  to  western  Virginia.  See  speeches  of  N.  Y.  members,  Annals,  Fourth 
Cong.,  1st  Sess. 


42  WILLIAM  BRANCH  GILES 

Jay.116  According  to  Mason,  the  Fairfax  purchasers  and  their 
friends,  along  with  British  merchants  and  agents  constituted 
the  Treaty  Party  in  Virginia.11^ 

The  significance  of  the  provision  was  seen  at  once  in  the 
South.  In  the  resolution  offered  by  Tazewell  in  the  Senate 
in  1794  was  one  objecting  to  the  ninth  article  "because  the 
rights  of  the  individual  states  are,  by  the  ninth  article  of  the 
treaty,  unconstitutionally  invaded."118  In  the  debate  in  the 
House,  later  to  be  described,  much  attention  was  given  to  this 
article,  particularly  as  it  affected,  or  might  affect,  the  Gren- 
ville  lands  in  North  Carolina  and  the  Fairfax  lands  in  Vir 
ginia.  Giles  referred  to  it;  John  Heath  from  the  Northern 
Neck  wished  it  might  not  revive  old  proprietary  rights,  with 
their  long  train  of  tenure,  fealty  and  vassalage.  "Perhaps," 
he  said,  "my  fears  may  ensue  from  residing  in  that  (part)  of 
Virginia,  where  this  tenure  once  prevailed."1  It  remained, 
however,  for  North  Carolinians  to  use  the  strongest  language. 
Macon  said  he  had  doubts  yet  in  his  mind,  respecting  the  con 
struction  of  the  ninth  article,  relative  to  the  holding  of  lands, 
"and  if  the  construction  which  some  gentlemen  thought  it  would 
bear  was  the  true  construction,  the  question  would  be  of  greater 
importance  in  the  State  of  North  Carolina  than  the  Declara 
tion  of  Independence  itself."  He  thought  one-half  of  the  lands 
in  that  state  would  be  affected  by  that  construction.120  Holland 
said  an  attempt  to  make  good  the  Grenville  claims  "would  cer 
tainly  be  resisted  by  force."1 

Before  many  years  had  passed  the  ninth  article  was,  as  pro 
phesied,  to  be  the  basis  of  many  suits  over  land  claims,  and 
particularly  the  basis  for  the  conflict  in  Virginia  over  the  Fair 
fax  lands.  The  Supreme  Court  of  the  United  States  in  Fair 
fax  Devisee  vs.  Hunter's  Lessee  rested  their  decision,  favorable 
to  the  plaintiffs,  on  the  Jay  Treaty,  declaring  "we  are  well 

ua  Am.  State  Papers,  For.  I,  504-509. 

UT  Letter  of  Stevens  Thomson  Mason  to  Henry  Tazewell  Oct.  6,  1795, 
in  the  important  Tazewell  collection  discovered  by  Mr,  E,  J,  Woodhouse. 

118  Annals,  Third  Cong.,  2nd  Sess.,  June  24,  1794. 

119  Annals,  Fourth  Cong.,  1st  Sess.,  1063. 

120  Ibid,  1271. 
**  Ibid,  1290. 


THE  JAY  TREATY  43 

satisfied  that  the  treaty  of  1794  completely  protects  and  con 
firms  the  title  of  Denny  Fairfax."1 

There  was  also  considerable  fear  that  the  provision  in  the 
treaty  for  the  payments  of  debts  owed  by  Americans  to  British 
creditors  would  result  in  enforced  payment  from  individuals. 
The  amount  of  such  money  owed  by  all  Americans  was  variously 
estimated  at  from  $5,000,000  to  $15,000,000.  It  was  generally 
argued  that  Virginians  owed  more  than  the  residents  of  any 
other  state.  Men  from  the  North  did  not  fail  to  press  home 
their  suspicion  that  many  were  opposed  to  the  execution  of  the 
treaty  because  "it  compels  some  of  them  to  pay  their  just 
debts,  which  they  contemplated  evading."123  Monroe  in  the  third 
Congress  had  proposed  in  the  Senate  that  the  fourth  article 
in  the  treaty — the  article  respecting  debts — should  be  sus 
pended  until  the  United  States  received  assurance  that  Great 
Britain  had  complied  with  her  obligation  to  us.124  Fisher  Ames 
thereupon  wrote  "murder  will  out."125 

In  the  elections  in  Virginia  following  the  negotiation  of  the 
treaty,  the  Federalists  were  badly  beaten  both  for  the  legis 
lature  and  for  Congress.  A  Republican  governor  was  elected 
by  the  Assembly.  Resolutions  were  adopted  approving  the 
conduct  of  Mason  and  Tazewell  in  the  Senate,  and  proposing 
an  amendment  to  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States  giving 
the  House  of  Representatives  part  in  the  treaty  making  power, 
diminishing  the  senatorial  term  by  three  years  and  disqualify 
ing  judges  of  the  supreme  court  from  holding  other  office.  The 
Legislature  refused  to  express  undiminished  confidence  in  the 
President.12*  Such  was  the  feeling  in  Virginia  when  Congress 
assembled  on  December  7. 

The  Treaty  had  not  been  immediately  promulgated,  for  it 
had  been  returned  to  England  in  order  that  she  might  accept 

122  7  Cranch,  627. 

128  Annals,  Fourth  Cong.,  1st  Sess.,  542. 

124  Annals,  Third  Cong.,  1st  Sess.,  93-94. 

126  Works  (1809)  p.  478. 

128  Randall,  Jefferson,  ii,  270.  Ambler,  Sectionalism  in  Virginia,  65.  See 
Acts  of  session  1795,  54,  55.  Although  refusing  to  express  undiminished 
confidence,  they  did  "entertain  the  highest  sense  of  the  integrity,  patriotism, 
and  wisdom  of  the  President  of  the  United  States." 


44  WILLIAM  B.  GILES 

the  Senate  amendment  striking  out  the  twelfth  article,  and 
might  also  revoke  an  order,  now  renewed,  authorizing  the  seiz 
ure  of  provisions  bound  for  France  in  the  vessels  of  neutrals. 
The  Senate  had  already  accepted  the  treaty  as  we  have  seen; 
but  an  appropriation  of  money  for  its  execution  depended  on 
the  House  of  Representatives,  and  this  body  seemed  disposed 
to  have  something  to  do  with  it.  The  first  question  arose  as 
to  the  form  of  the  answer  to  the  President's  message.  An 
answer  had  been  drawn  by  the  select  committee  consisting  of 
Madison,  Sedgwick,  and  Sitgreaves,  a  section  of  which  answer, 
"Theodore's  last-effort-at-the  sublime  and  beautiful, "  contained 
words  expressive  of  undiminished  confidence  in  the  President. 
These  words,  implying  as  they  would  have  done,  an  approval 
of  his  signature  to  the  treaty  were  not  adopted.127  On  Feb 
ruary  29,  the  treaty  was  formally  proclaimed,  and  on  March 
2,  the  following  resolution  was  offered  by  Edward  Livingston: 
"Resolved,  that  the  President  of  the  United  States  be  requested 
to  lay  before  this  House  a  copy  of  the  instructions  to  the 
Minister  of  the  United  States,  who  negotiated  the  treaty  with 
the  King  of  Great  Britain,  communicated  by  his  message  of  the 
first  of  March,  together  with  the  correspondence  and  other 
documents  relative  to  the  said  treaty."1  This  resolution  gave 
rise  to  an  extended  debate  on  "the  constitutional  rights  of  the 
House  of  Representatives  in  checking  the  treaty  making  power. 
The  parties  on  both  sides  came  forward  and  placed  the  fate 
of  the  proposition  on  that  constitutional  ground."  In  Giles's 
opinion,  "the  opposers  of  the  resolution  in  their  first  onset, 
assumed  a  most  authoritative  tone,  and  without  equivocation 

127  See   Giles   to  Jefferson,   Dec.   9    and    15.     Giles   thought   the  message 
conciliatory.     It  made  "a  considerable  impression  upon  the  House  of  Repre 
sentatives."     He  did  not  approve  of  the  "studyed  silence  respecting  France," 
however.     He  said  the  manner  in  which  the  treaty  was  mentioned  in  the 
speech  had  embarrassed  its  opposers  as  to  the  answer.     If  an  attempt  were 
made  to  bring  the  Treaty  in,  it  would  be  said  that  it  was  not  before  the 
House,  and  if  they  did  not  bring  it  in,  it  would  later  be  said  when  the 
Treaty  was  attacked  that  it  was  uncandid  not  to  have  notified  the  President 
at  once.     He  himself  was  in  favor  of  condemning  it  now,  but  in  a  manner 
respectful  to  the  other  departments. 

128  Annals,  Fourth  Cong.,  1st  Sess.,  426.     The  resolution  was  subsequently 
amended. 


THE  JAY  TREATY  45 

enthroned  the  treaty  making  power  in  a  despotism  complete. 
They  declared  that  the  treaty  making  power  was  undefined  in 
its  nature,  unlimited  in  its  extent,  and  paramount  in  its  author 
ity.  They  then  proceeded  to  denounce  those  who  would  not 
yield  an  assent  to  this  doctrine,  as  rebels  and  traitors  against 
the  constituted  authorities."  For  this  doctrine  and  language 
Giles  thought  "we  are  probably  indebted  to  some  degree  to  the 
mockery  displayed  on  the  President's  last  birthday."  In  his 
opinion  their  doctrine  discarded  "the  utility  of  checks,  and  by 
means  of  the  treaty  makeing  power  completely  checkmates  the 
whole  constitution."129 

The  views  of  Giles  outlined  in  the  preceding  paragraph  had 
been  more  elaborately  set  forth  in  a  speech  of  March  11.  Gen 
tlemen  claimed,  he  said,  that  the  treaty  making  power  is  un 
limited.  The  doctrine  was  alarming.  "Never,  I  will  venture 
to  say,  was  there  an  instance  of  a  more  complete  rout  of  so 
complete  a  system  of  checks,  within  the  term  of  six  years,  in 
any  government  on  earth;  and  if  the  doctrine  now  contended 
for  be  agreed  to,  then  I  do  declare  that  the  triumph  of  evasion 
of  checks  is  complete  indeed,  and  little  will  be  left  hereafter  to 
be  evaded."  He  denies  that  the  clause  in  the  Constitution 
making  the  Constitution,  treaties,  and  laws  of  the  United 
States  supreme  law  of  the  land  makes  treaties  supreme  over 
laws.  "The  right  of  annulling  treaties  is  essential  to  national 
sovereignly."  There  are  two  kinds  of  checks  over  treaties 
provided  in  our  Constitution;  one  is  the  enumerated  powers — 
so  far  as  treaties  encroach  on  these  powers  they  must  be  sub 
mitted  to  Congress ;  the  other  is  the  power  to  make  appropria 
tions.  And  in  the  exercise  of  their  discretion  in  this  matter, 
their  duty  is  not  perfunctory.  Their  opinions  must  be  "ma 
tured  by  deliberation,"  "their  conduct  must  rest  on  the  opera 
tions  of  their  own  minds."  To  admit  that  the  House  has  "to 

129  Giles  to  Jefferson,  March  26,  1796.  Jefferson  MSS.,  Lib.  Cong.  Jeffer 
son's  opinion  of  the  Treaty  was  that  it  was  an  "execrable  thing,"  an  "infamous 
act,  which  is  really  nothing  more  than  a  treaty  of  alliance  between  England 
and  the  Anglomen  of  this  country  against  the  Legislature  and  people  of  the 
United  States"— letter  to  Edward  Rutledge,  November  30,  1795.  Writings 
of  Jefferson  (Ford)  vii,  40. 


46  WILLIAM  BRANCH  GILES 

make  the  requisite  provisions  for  carrying"  into  effect  treaties 
is  to  confer  on  the  President  the  power  to  legislate  and  "neces 
sarily  destroys  their  right  to  the  exercise  of  discretion."130 
The  debate  continued  on  this  resolution  until  March  24  when 
it  was  carried  by  a  vote  of  sixty-two  to  thirty-seven,  all  the 
members  from  Virginia  voting  in  the  affirmative,131  and  nearly 
all  the  representatives  from  the  South  except  those  from  South 
Carolina  voting  the  same  way. 

The  President  had  already  armed  himself.  Consulting  Ham 
ilton,  and  sustained  by  the  whole  cabinet,  on  March  30,  he 
sent  down  a  message  declining  to  comply  with  the  request  of  the 
House  on  the  ground  that  their  concurrence  was  not  necessary 
to  give  validity  to  the  treaty  making  power  and  because  of 
the  necessity  of  maintaining  the  bounds  of  authority  assigned 
by  the  Constitution  to  the  different  departments.13'  Uncon 
vinced  by  the  President's  reasoning  the  House  thereupon 
adopted  resolutions  disclaiming  an  agency  in  making  or  rati 
fying  treaties  but  asserting  their  right  when  a  treaty  is  made, 
which  requires  a  law  or  laws  passed  to  carry  it  into  effect,  to 
deliberate  and  determine  the  propriety  or  impropriety  of  pass 
ing  such  laws,  and  their  right  also  to  ask  for  information  with 
out  stating  the  purpose  for  which  it  was  asked.13' 

In  the  meantime  treaties  with  the  Indians,  Spain,  and  Algiers 
had  been  ratified  and  came  before  the  House  in  order  that 
provision  might  be  made  for  their  execution.  Seeing  their 
opportunity  the  Federalists  intended  grouping  all  four  of  the 
treaties  together  and  so  forcing  on  all  who  desired  the  execu 
tion  of  the  other  three  treaties  provision  for  the  execution  of 
the  British.134  Some  of  them  had  in  mind  also  holding  up  cer 
tain  legislation  of  an  entirely  different  character.135  Giles,138 

180  Annals,  Fourth  Cong.,  1st  Sess.,  500-514. 

181  Ibid,  759. 

182  Richardson,  Messages,  i,  194. 

188  Annals,  Fourth  Cong.,  1st  Sess.,  771,  782,  783.  See  also  Giles  to  Jeffer 
son,  Apr.  6,  1796. 

184Gibbs,  Administration,  etc.,  i,  321-331.  Letters  of  prominent  Federal 
ists.  See  also  Randall,  ii,  292,  note.  See  Sedgwick's  resolution  of  April  13. 

185  Gibbs,  i,  331.     Goodrich  hopes  the  Senate  will  "arrest  the  whole  gov 
ernment,  and  let  the  people  decide." 

186  Annals,  Fourth  Cong.,  1st  Sess.,  942,  943,  965,  968. 


THE  JAY  TREATY  47 

with  the  other  Republicans,  insisted  on  considering  the  treaties 
separately,  and  finally  gained  his  point.  The  British  treaty 
came  up  for  discussion  on  April  14,  and  was  discussed  for  six 
teen  days.  Madison  and  Gallatin  and  all  the  leading  Republi 
cans  addressed  the  House  in  opposition  to  the  execution  of 
the  instrument.  Giles  arose  on  April  18,  and  delivered  a  speech 
covering  twenty-eight  columns  in  the  Annals.  He  divided  his 
discussion  into  two  portions.  First  an  examination  of  the 
treaty,  article  by  article,  and  second  a  consideration  of  the 
probable  consequences  of  refusing  to  accept  it.  He  criticised 
our  abandonment  of  the  claim  for  compensation  for  property 
carried  off,  the  delay  in  the  surrender  of  the  western  posts, 
the  assumption  by  our  Government  of  debts  due  by  American 
citizens  to  British  citizens  before  the  Revolution  and  the  in 
crease  in  the  debt  of  the  United  States  which  that  would  in 
volve,  the  prohibition  of  sequestration  of  debts  during  war  as 
prohibiting  the  United  States  from  resorting  to  the  best  means 
not  only  of  preventing  war,  but  of  the  most  efficacious  means 
of  supporting  it,  the  concession  to  Great  Britain  of  the  most 
favored  nation  privilege  as  respects  customs  duties,  the  aban 
donment  of  the  principle  that  free  ships  make  free  goods.  On 
the  subject  of  the  failure  of  the  treaty  to  provide  compensation 
for  negroes  carried  off  by  the  British,  he  was  speaking  of  a 
matter  close  at  home  and  spoke  shrewdly  and  to  the  point.  It 
sounded  strange  to  him  to  hear  it  declared  that  the  seventh 
article  of  the  treaty  of  1783  in  which  the  British  promised  to 
withdraw  their  armies  "without  carrying  away  any  negroes 
or  other  property  of  the  American  inhabitants"  did  not  apply 
to  property  seized  during  the  war.  At  the  end  of  the  war  the 
British  army  was  in  New  York,  the  negroes  in  the  South,  "so 
that  if  the  article  did  not  include  that  species  of  property 
taken  in  the  course  of  the  war,  and  in  the  possession  of  the 
British  at  the  end  of  it,  it  was  worse  than  nonsense.  It  never 
could  have  been  supposed  that,  upon  the  first  dawn  of  peace, 
the  British  would  have  left  New  York  and  invaded  the  Southern 
country,  for  the  purpose  of  plundering  the  inhabitants  of  their 
negroes,"  "Having  examined  the  treaty  at  la.rge,  with  candor, 


48  WILLIAM  B.  GILES 

and  with  the  best  judgment  he  possessed,  he  found  in  it 
so  much  to  condemn,  and  so  little  to  applaud,  and  some  of  the 
objectionable  parts  were  so  formidable  in  themselves,  that  it 
was  wonderful  to  him  that  the  treaty  should  have  found  an 
advocate,  upon  its  mere  merits,  in  the  United  States.  Viewing 
the  subject  as  he  did,  and  believing  it  his  duty  to  exercise  his 
discretion  upon  it,  nothing  contained  in  it  could  justify  him  in 
giving  his  vote  for  the  necessary  provisions  to  give  it  effi 
cacy."1  The  contents  of  the  treaty  proved  the  former  con 
tentions  of  those  who  have  charged  British  influence  in  our  af 
fairs.  As  for  the  consequences  that  would  flow  from  a  failure  to 
execute  the  treaty,  he  denied  that  such  action  would  result  in  a 
total  dissolution  of  the  Government  itself.  The  House  had 
already  decided  that  it  had  discretion  constitutionally  to  con 
sider  the  expediency  of  the  expenditure  for  the  execution  of 
treaties  and  the  ways  of  raising  money.  It  was  true  also  that  in 
this  contest  the  House  had  not  been  the  aggressor.  Nor  would  a 
refusal  to  carry  out  the  treaty  result  in  war  with  Great  Britain. 
Great  Britain  like  all  other  nations  was  led  by  her  interests; 
and  her  present  military  situation  and  dependence  on  trade 
with  the  United  States  all  went  to  show  that  it  was  not  to  her 
interests  to  have  war  with  us. 

In  conclusion  he  declared,  "upon  the  whole,  he  conscien 
tiously  believed  the  treaty  to  be  a  bad  one.  He  believed  it 
contained  the  most  complete  evidence  of  British  interference  in 
our  national  affairs,  and  had  laid  the  foundation  for  the  further 
extension  of  British  influence.  It  has  restricted  the  exercise 
of  some  of  the  most  important  rights  of  national  sovereignty. 
It  has  voluntarily  hazarded  the  neutrality  of  the  United  States 
in  the  present  European  war,  and  destroyed  all  pretensions 
to  its  character  of  impartiality.  It  has  not  afforded  protection 
to  our  neutral  rights,  which  was  amongst  its  great  objects; 
and  in  the  adjustment  of  the  differences  resulting  from  the  in- 
execution  of  the  Treaty  of  Peace,  it  is  unequal  and  unjust. 
All  Hiese  important  circumstances  considered,  and  when  it  is 
also  considered  that  the  British  persevere  in  impressing  our 

137  Annals,  Fourth  Cong.,  1st  Sess.,  1044. 


THE  JAY  TREATY  49 

seamen  and  seizing  our  vessels,  in  violation  of  the  clearest  rights 
of  neutral  nations,  even  since  the  signing  of  the  treaty,  he  could 
not  consent  to  be  the  instrument  of  giving  it  efficacy.  He 
believed  that  it  was  one  of  those  extraordinary  cases  which 
justified  strong  and  extraordinary  measures."1 

But  the  efforts  of  the  Republicans  were  of  no  avail.  Giles 
himself  had  from  the  first  thought  the  treaty  party  would  suc 
ceed.139  On  April  6  he  wrote  Jefferson,  "the  weight  of  the  Pres 
ident,  twenty  senators,  funded  gentry — British  gentry — land 
gentry,  aristocratic  gentry,  military  gentry  and  besides  these  a 
gregarious  tribe  of  sycophants  and  runmad  speculators,  will  be 
found  to  be  as  much  as  the  shoulders  of  the  majority  of  the 
House  will  be  able  to  bear ;  particularly  when  their  activity  and 
ingenuity  in  making  divisions  amongst  the  well  meaning  part 
of  the  community  are  taken  into  consideration."1  But  senti 
ment  was  changing  among  the  people.  Petitions  came  in  urg 
ing  the  execution  of  the  treaty141  and  among  these  were  some 
from  Virginia  herself.14'  Finally  in  the  House  was  delivered 
an  epoch  making  speech,  reasonable,  eloquent,  entrancing,  by 
one  already  marked  for  the  grave,  Fisher  Ames  of  Massa 
chusetts.  The  next  day  came  the  vote.  For  declaring  the  treaty 
"highly  objectionable"  forty-eight  votes  were  cast  against 
forty-eight  and  the  speaker  voted  in  the  negative.  Fifty 
against  forty-nine  refused  to  describe  it  as  "objectionable," 
and  at  last  fifty-one  to  forty-eight  voted  in  favor  of  carrying 
the  treaty  into  effect,143  every  member  from  Virginia  but  George 
Hancock  voting  in  the  negative.144  The  vote  was  strictly  sec 
tional;  only  four  votes  from  south  of  Mason  and  Dixon's  line 

138  For  the  entire  speech,  see  Annals,  Fourth  Cong.,  1st  Sess.,  1025-1053. 

139  Letter  to  Jefferson,  March  26,  1796.     Jefferson  MSS. 

140  Jeff.  MSS.,  Lib.  of  Cong. 

141  Annals,  Fourth  Cong.,  1st  Sess.,   1114,  1264,   1228.     McMaster,  ii,  281 
and  following. 

142  Bassett,    Federalist    System,    135.      King,    Life    and    Correspondence 
of  King,  ii,  59.    They  were  from  Winchester,  Alexandria,  Richmond,  Staun- 
ton.     See  Richmond  and  Manchester  Advertiser,  Jan.  27,  April  27,  May  18, 
1796. 

143  April  30. 

144  Randall,  Jefferson,  ii,  295.     Annals,  1291.  Hancock  was  from  Botetourt 
County  in  the  valley,  which  has  been  traditionally  Federalist. 


50  WILLIAM  BRANCH  GILES 

were  cast  for  the  treaty  and  two  of  them  were  from  South 
Carolina ;  thirteen  from  the  North  were  given  against  it.  New 
England  and  the  middle  states  carried  the  day. 

Although  Giles  chafed  at  being  detained,  Congress  remained 
in  session  another  month.  Besides  opposing  the  building  of 
frigates,140  the  creation  of  a  standing  army,146  and  favoring 
the  appointment  of  government  agents  abroad  and  the  equip 
ment  of  our  seamen  with  certificates  of  citizenship,147  his 
service  seems  at  this  meeting  to  have  been  confined  to  the 
unsuccessful  fight  against  the  Jay  Treaty. 

145  Annals,  Fourth  Congress,  1st  Sess.,  885,  893. 

146  Ibid,  908,  912. 

147  Ibid,  391,  394. 


CHAPTER  IV 

THE  RETIREMENT  OF  WASHINGTON  AND  THE 
FRENCH  WAR 

Before  another  session  of  Congress,  the  electors  had  been 
chosen  for  a  third  time  to  choose  a  President.  Washington's 
declining  to  accept  another  term  gave  an  opportunity  for  the 
first  national  party  contest  at  an  election.  The  Republicans 
had  no  difficulty  in  making  a  selection  of  their  candidates, 
Jefferson  and  Burr.  But  the  Federalists  were  troubled  as  to 
the  men  whom  they  should  put  before  the  country.  Finally 
John  Adams  and  Thomas  Pinckney  were  settled  on.  A  cam 
paign  characterized  by  intense  bitterness  on  the  part  of  po 
litical  pamphleteers,  by  some  fraud  as  well  as  by  political 
intrigue  came  to  an  end  February,  1797,  when  the  count  of 
electors  by  Congress  showed  John  Adams  returned  as  Presi 
dent  and  Thomas  Jeiferson  as  Vice-President.  In  the  mean 
time  Congress  had  met  in  its  second  session,  December  5,  and 
the  last  message  of  Washington  was  heard.  The  congenial 
task  of  writing  the  answer  was  assigned  to  the  orator  of  the 
Jay  treaty  defence,  Fisher  Ames,  ardent  in  his  Federalism  and 
effusive  in  his  rhetoric.  It  expressed  "anxiety  and  deep  re 
gret  .  .  .  that  any  interruption  of  our  harmony  with 
the  French  Republic  has  occurred."  "Your  endeavors,"  it 
went  on  to  say,  "to  fulfill  that  wish  .  .  .  cannot  fail, 
therefore,  to  interest  our  attention  .  .  .  We  cherish  the 
pleasing  hope,"  the  address  continued,  "that  a  spirit  of  justice 
and  moderation  will  ensure  the  success  of  your  perseverance." 
Proceeding,  it  contrasted  our  tranquil  prosperity  "with  the 
calamities  in  which  the  state  of  war  still  involves  several  of  the 
European  nations."  The  administration  of  Washington  was 
called  "wise,  firm,  and  patriotic,"  and  "signally  conducive  to 
the  success  of  the  present  form  of  government."  Regret  was 
expressed  at  the  President's  coming  retirement  and  an  eloquent 
eulogy  of  his  character  and  services  pronounced. 


52  WILLIAM  B.  GILES 

With  the  sentiments  expressed  in  Ames's  document  more 
radical  Republicans  could  not  agree.  Giles  wished  the  whole 
document  to  be  recommitted  and,  objecting  to  the  tone  of  that 
paragraph  in  the  address  having  reference  to  France,  he  se 
cured  an  amendment  more  expressive  of  friendly  feelings  to 
that  Republic.  On  reflection,  also,  he  could  see  a  want  of 
wisdom  and  firmness  in  the  administration  for  the  last  six 
years — "If  we  took  a  view  of  our  foreign  relations,  we  should," 
he  said,  "see  no  reason  to  exult  in  the  wisdom  or  firmness  of 
our  administration."  "If  we  take,"  he  continued,  "a  view  into 
our  internal  situation  and  behold  the  ruined  state  of  public  and 
private  credit,  ...  he  never  could  recollect  it  so  de 
ranged.  If  we  survey  this  city,  what  a  shameful  scene  it  alone 
exhibits,  owing,  as  he  supposed,  to  the  immense  quantity  of 
paper  issued."  Surely  this  could  afford  no  ground  for  ad 
miration  of  the  Administration  that  caused  it.  He  confessed  to 
thinking  less  of  the  President  than  did  some  others.  If  others 
regretted  the  retirement  of  the  Father  of  his  Country,  Giles 
wished  him  to  retire  at  once  and  thought  the  country  would 
not  suffer,  and  that  the  President  would  be  happier  than  he 
then  was.  Thousands  of  men  in  the  United  States  could  fill 
the  office  and  many  could  fill  it  with  "credit  and  advantage." 
Gentlemen  who  had  opposed  prominent  measures  of  the  ad 
ministration  could  not  be  expected  now  to  come  forward  and 
approve  of  them.  Let  gentlemen  compliment  the  President  as 
individuals  but  let  not  adulation  pervade  the  House.14*  When 
the  vote  on  the  answer  was  taken,  Giles,  Andrew  Jackson, 
Edward  Livingston,  Nathaniel  Macon,  Abraham  Venable,  and 
seven  others  voted  nay.149And  were  they  committing  any  offence 

148  Annals,  Fourth  Cong.,  2nd  Sess.,  1615-1618.     Giles  said  he  believed  in 
the  President's  good  intentions,  and  did  not  deny  his  patriotism.     Thought 
him  a  well  meaning  man  but  misled,  (p.  1622)  Later,  in  1812,  Giles  admitted 
his  erroneous  judgment  of  Washington,  and  came  to  admire  him  in  compar 
ison  with  Gallatin,  etc.     In  1828,  during  the  Jackson  campaign,  Giles  ex 
plained  his  refusal  in  1797  to  favor  the  answer  to  the  President's  speech. 
As  he  had  opposed  most  of  Washington's  important  measures  he  could  not 
wish  his  example  might  be  the  guide  for  his  successors.     U.  S.  Telegraph 
Extra,  July  5,  1828. 

149  Annals,  1667. 


WASHINGTON  AND  THE  FRENCH  WAR  53 

against  morals  or  etiquette  by  so  doing?  Should  men  who  had 
made  themselves  famous  for  their  opposition  to  each  of  the 
measures  of  the  first  President's  administration  declare  that 
they  now  wished  the  record  which  they  had  condemned  to  be 
the  guide  of  succeeding  Presidents  ?  Did  courtesy  require  that 
they  should  condemn  themselves  in  order  to  flatter  the  Father 
of  his  Country?  If  Giles  was  wrong  he  erred  in  good  company; 
and  withal  his  constituents  were  with  him.  But  were  Madison 
and  the  majority  of  the  Republicans  stultifying  themselves  by 
voting  with  the  Federalists?  In  all  probability  they  regarded 
their  votes  as  harmless  and  acted  in  a  perfunctory  manner. 
But  Giles  was  anything  but  perfunctory — to  him  every  act  was 
significant — was  worth  a  fight.  Repulsed  on  this  occasion,  he 
did  not  speak  on  the  following  days  as  frequently  as  usual  and 
seemed  to  have  absented  himself  much  more  than  was  his  cus 
tom  in  preceding  sessions. 

Congress  adjourned  on  March  3,  1797.  Giles  hastened  back 
to  Virginia  to  attend  to  most  interesting  business.  During  the 
month  of  March  he  led  to  the  altar  Miss  Martha  Peyton  Tabb. 
In  those  days  marriage  was  a  more  formidable  ceremony  than 
it  is  at  present.  In  the  records  of  Amelia  County  is  Giles's 
marriage  bond  of  $150  and  a  quaint  note  signed  by  John  Tabb 
and  addressed  to  the  clerk  of  the  court  reading  as  follows : 

"Sir: 

Be  pleased  to  grant  a  license  to  Mr.  William  Giles  to  be 
intermarried  with  my  daughter  Martha  Peyton  Tabb."  Mr. 
William  Giles  made  a  good  bargain  with  his  $150  bond.  By 
this  marriage  he  allied  himself  with  two  of  the  most  aristocratic 
families  of  Virginia,  the  Peytons  and  the  Tabbs,  and,  through 
the  intermarriage  of  his  wife's  sisters  and  relatives,  with  other 
influential  families — the  Bannisters,  Archers,  etc.  In  addition 
to  this  widening  of  social  relations  so  important  in  those  years 
in  Virginia  politics,  he  improved  also  his  material  welfare,  for 
Mr.  John  Tabb,  his  wife's  father,  formerly  a  burgess  and  a 
member  of  the  Committee  of  Safety,  left  a  personal  estate  of 
£31,879. 15C  On  a  spot  three  miles  from  the  Appomattox, 

150  William  and  Mary  Quarterly,  XIII,  126. 


54  WILLIAM  BRANCH  GILES 

and  in  a  pleasant  and  retired  situation  he  built  the  famous 
residence  in  Amelia  called  "Wigwam,"  a  spacious  frame  house 
of  twenty-eight  rooms,  "prettily  and  neatly  built,"  "surrounded 
by  a  grove  of  mammoth  trees."1  There  he  dispensed  hos 
pitality  and  charity,  talked  politics  with  his  friends,  collected 
plants  and  raised  flowers,  exchanged  seeds  and  ideas  with 
Thomas  Jefferson,  in  short  conducted  a  fine  old  Virginia  plan 
tation  with  its  thousands  of  acres  of  lands,  many  negroes,  and 
ruinous  waste. 

On  March  4,  1797,  John  Adams  was  inaugurated  President. 
The  attitude  of  Giles  to  Adams  prior  to  the  inauguration  was 
not  unkindly.  In  a  letter  to  his  wife  dated  December  12,  1796, 
Adams  quotes  him  as  saying  "the  point  is  settled.  The  V.  P. 
will  be  President.  He  is  undoubtedly  chosen.  The  old  man  will 
make  a  good  President,  too!  .  .  .  But  we  shall  have  to 
check  him  a  little  now  and  then.  That  will  be  all."152  In  this 
as  usual  during  the  early  part  of  his  career,  Giles,  though  in 
dependent  enough,  was  in  accord  with  the  attitude  of  Jefferson. 
Indeed  the  turning  of  the  Republicans  to  Adams,  whom  they  re 
spected  more  than  they  did  the  other  Federalist  leaders  and 
whom  they  possibly  hoped  to  convert  into  a  semi-Republican, 
is  very  interesting.153  But  the  conciliatory  plans  of  both  Jef 
ferson  and  Adams  seemed  to  have  been  frustrated  by  the  Ham- 
iltonian  cabinet  which  the  new  President  retained.  No  sooner 
had  the  extra  session  of  the  fifth  Congress  convened  than  the 
effort  to  "check"  the  President  a  bit  began.  The  circumstances 
necessitating  the  gathering  of  the  extra  session  grew  out  of  the 
strained  relations  with  France  which  had  arisen  by  1797. 
Smarting  at  our  failure  to  carry  out  the  treaties  of  1778  as 
they  interpreted  them,  objecting  to  the  Jay  Treaty  and  the 
apparent  betrayal  of  French  interests  involved  in  it  as  well  as 
the  seeming  deception  practiced  toward  the  French  government 
in  regard  to  the  objects  of  the  negotiations  with  Great  Britain, 
and  resenting  the  recall  of  Monroe  by  the  Washington  adminis- 

151  Mrs.  Overton,  Martin's  Gazetteer  of  Virginia,  Charlottesville,  1835,  128. 

152  The  Life  and  Works  of  John  Adams,  i,  495. 
» Ibid,  495.    Writings  of  Jefferson,  vii,  103. 


WASHINGTON  AND  THE  FRENCH  WAR  55 

tration,154  the  French  had  refused  to  accept  our  next  minister, 
C.  C.  Pinckney,  or  even  to  allow  him  to  remain  on  French  soil; 
also  in  order  to  punish  us  for  our  conduct,  they  issued  an 
order  authorizing  French  ships  to  treat  neutral  vessels  as 
these  neutrals  allowed  themselves  to  be  treated.  To  the  as 
sembled  Congress  Adams  transmitted  a  message  reciting  the 
treatment  received  by  our  minister,  and  calling  for  prompt 
measures  of  defence.155  The  friends  of  the  administration  de 
sired  in  the  answer  to  the  President  to  express  the  confidence  of 
Congress  in  the  administration  and  their  approval  of  his  con 
duct;  the  opposition  contended  that  a  removal  of  the  inequal 
ities  produced  by  the  Jay  treaty  would  be  all  that  would  be 
necessary  to  produce  an  accommodation  with  France.  For  in 
stance,  Giles  asserted  that  France  was  not  on  the  same  foot 
ing  with  reference  to  us  as  other  powers  and  the  question  was 
that  of  approving  all  the  President  had  done  and  putting 
France  on  an  equality  with  other  nations.  All  the  steps  taken 
by  the  Executive  seemed  to  Giles  to  have  had  in  view  an 
eventual  appeal  to  arms,  which  he  wished  to  avoid.  He  could 
not  agree  to  be  "either  silly  or  insolent"  in  showing  our  ul 
timatum;  when  strife  came,  however,  he  would  stand  by  his 
country.158  He  was  one  of  those  who  felt  "a  strong  appre 
hension  of  a  war."  He  would,  however,  "stand  by  his  country, 
in  the  storm  and  share  its  fate." 

On  the  twenty-fifth  Giles  spoke  for  three  hours  on  the  sub 
ject.  Going  into  a  history  of  our  relations  with  France  since 
the  beginning  of  the  war  with  England,  he  declared  that  there 
had  been  a  condition  of  tranquility  until  the  Jay  treaty.  This 
had  been  injurious  both  to  France  and  to  us,  particularly  in 

154  A  controversy  took  place  between  Giles  and  Harper  in  May  and  June 
1797  over  some  charges  of  improper  conduct  made  by  Harper  against  Mon 
roe  while  our  Minister  in  France.  Giles  demanded  explanations  and  docu 
ments,  etc.  He  claims  that  he  had  been  in  "habits  of  friendship  and  inti 
macy  with  Colo.  Monroe;  from  an  early  period  of  my  political  life  to  the 
time  of  his  mission  to  France."  See  Correspondence  in  Monroe  MSS.,  Lib. 
Cong. 

165  Annals,  Fifth  Cong.,  1st  Sess.,  50.  Richardson,  Messages  and  Papers, 
1,  233. 

166  Annals,  70,  96,  108. 


56  WILLIAM  B.  GILES 

the  matter  of  neutral  ships  and  contraband  of  war.  Some  of 
the  present  French  demands  were  unjust  and  trifling;  these 
should  be  refused.  As  to  the  dismissal  of  Pinckney,  he  would 
not  say  that  this  was  right,  but  the  French  had  some  justifi 
cation  and  they  still  wished  harmony  with  the  American  people. 
To  deny  that  we  had  obligations  to  France  was  to  contradict 
our  feelings.  That  there  was  in  this  country  such  a  thing 
as  a  French  influence  was  contradicted  by  our  conduct  in  the 
Genet  affair.  One  gentleman  had  spoken  of  the  bad  effects 
of  French  depredations  on  our  farming  interests.  How  about 
the  effect  of  the  British  Treaty?  Since  that  document  was 
signed  wheat  had  fallen  from  three  dollars  a  bushel  to  seven 
shillings,  at  which  price  he  was  then  selling  it.  What  would 
be  the  effect  of  war  on  both  farmer  and  merchant? — greater 
taxes  and  smaller  prices  on  produce.  It  would  mean  also  a 
more  intimate  connection  with  Great  Britain.  The  adoption 
of  the  language  of  the  friends  of  the  administration  in  the 
answer  to  the  President  would  be  equivalent  to  a  declaration 
of  war.  One  gentleman  had  said  such  an  answer  would  be  a 
second  Declaration  of  Independence.  According  to  Giles  we 
had  been  needing  a  second  Declaration  of  Independence  ever 
since  the  British  treaty  took  away  so  many  of  our  sovereign 
rights,  but  this  was  not  the  time  for  its  announcement.157 

As  a  result  of  the  discussion,  a  compromise  was  agreed  upon 
and  the  answer  as  passed  expressed  a  hope  that  the  United 
States  would  place  France  "on  grounds  similar  to  those  of 
other  countries,  in  their  relation  and  connection  with  us,  if 
any  inequalities  shall  be  found  to  exist."158  For  this  compro 
mise  Giles  voted  though  he  voted  against  the  final  draft  of 
the  answer.159  Later  he  confessed  he  had  little  confidence  in 
the  President  and  asserted  that  his  changed  feelings  were  due 
to  the  President's  speech.160 

We  have  seen  the  attitude  of  the  Petersburg  member  on  the 
general  French  question.  It  was  the  attitude  of  the  Republicans 

157  Annals,  138,  143. 

158  Ibid,  231 

159  Ibid,  233. 

160  Ibid,  364. 


WASHINGTON  AND  THE  FRENCH  WAR  57 

as  a  party.  Nor  was  his  opposition  or  theirs  a  theoretical 
proposition.  They  made  opposition  against  an  increase  of 
expenditures  and  an  increase  of  taxes.  When  William  Smith 
in  behalf  of  the  administration  brought  forward  resolutions 
providing  for  fortifications,  for  increases  of  the  army  and 
navy,  and  for  the  raising  of  money,  Giles  disapproved  of  pre 
cipitation  and  wished  the  matter  to  rest  until  the  next  session.161 
Our  military  establishment  was  already,  he  thought,  too  large 
by  one-half,  and  yet  advantage  was  taken  of  the  present  alarm 
to  increase  it.162!  Our  military  establishments  had  not,  he  de 
clared,  paid  for  themselves — they  were  a  bad  bargain.16'  "Our 
great  interests  lay,"  in  his  opinion,  "in  the  soil ;  and  if  ever  the 
vitals  of  the  country  were  to  be  drawn  together  for  the  purpose 
of  protecting  our  commerce  on  the  sea,  he  should  greatly  lament 
it."  A  navy,  in  his  judgment,  was  a  great  evil;  the  despotism 
of  nations  kept  pace  with  the  ratio  of  expense,  and  yet,  he 
was  convinced  that  some  gentlemen  desired  to  increase  the  ex 
penses  of  government.16^  Each  measure  as  it  came  up  was 
fought  by  the  opposition  including  Giles.  But  despite  opposi 
tion  Congress  passed  acts  authorizing  the  completion  of  the 
"United  States,"  the  "Constitution,"  and  the  "Constellation," 
and  made  provision  for  the  employment  of  80,000  militia  subject 
to  immediate  command.  Duties  on  salt  were  increased,  a  stamp 
tax  provided,  and  a  loan  of  $800,000  authorized.165  And  the 
Senate  ratified  the  appointment  of  Pinckney,  Marshall,  and 
Gerry  as  envoys  extraordinary  to  France. 

Whether  it  was  the  charms  of  a  new  wife,  the  state  of  his 
health,  or  the  necessary  quietness  of  Congressional  proceedings 
awaiting  the  issue  of  the  special  mission  to  France  that  pre 
vented  Giles's  prompt  attendance  on  the  second  session  of  the 
Fifth  Congress,  I  do  not  know,  but,  at  any  rate,  he  did  not 
appear  in  Philadelphia  until  February  7,  1798,  although 

161  Annals,  239. 

182  Ibid,  328. 

163  Ibid,  346. 

184  Ibid,  382. 

165  Schouler,  i,  396.     See  Acts  of  June  24,  July  1,  July  8,  July  6,  1797. 


58  WILLIAM  BRANCH  GILES 

Congress  assembled  on  November  13. 166  On  the  nineteenth  of 
March  a  message  was  received  from  the  President  declaring 
that  from  a  careful  examination  and  consideration  of  the  dis 
patches  of  the  envoys  to  France,  he  could  see  "no  ground  of 
expectation  that  the  objects  of  their  mission  can  be  accom 
plished  on  terms  compatible  with  the  safety,  honor,  or  the 
essential  interests  of  the  nation,"  and  urged  Congress  "to  mani 
fest  a  zeal,  vigor,  and  concert  in  defence  of  the  national  rights 
proportional  to  the  danger  with  which  they  are  threatened."167 
Resolutions  were  offered  by  Sprigg  of  Maryland  on  March  27, 
declaring  that  under  the  circumstances  it  was  inexpedient  to 
declare  war  on  France,  that  arming  merchant  vessels  ought  to 
be  restricted,  and  that  seacoast  and  internal  defence  should  be 
maintained.165  Harper  led  the  debate  against  the  resolutions 
and  had  sharp  clashes  with  Giles,  who,  in  harmony  with  the 
resolutions  and  the  Republican  position,  had  already  declared 
that  defence  could  not  be  carried  beyond  our  coast,  where  it 
was  always  proper.  Some  in  the  House,  he  thought,  wished 
war.  When  we  had  information  as  to  the  ground  on  which  our 
ministers  had  been  refused  audience  the  House  might  then  be 
able  to  speak.  Harper  in  reply  declared  it  was  not  unusual 
for  Giles  to  display  his  ignorance.  Brooks  of  New  York,  in 
answer  to  Giles's  sneers  at  his  services  in  the  army  "in  the 
honorable  and  humane  employment  of  clothier,"  replied:  "If 
the  gentleman  doubts  my  being  a  soldier,  I  am  here  to  answer 
him."  Otis  characterized  a  statement  as  a  "bold,  ungraceful — 
disgraceful  assertion." — Giles  replied  that  this  was  a  charge 
which  neither  Otis  nor  any  other  man  dared  make  in  any  other 
place.  Cries  of  order  having  been  raised  the  speaker  replied 
that  nearly  every  member  who  had  spoken  had  offended.165  In 
the  discussion  on  the  Sprigg  resolution,  Giles  asserted  that 
no  nation  had  a  right  to  go  to  war  except  when  attacked.  He 

160  Though  no  quorum  was  present  in  the  Senate  till  Nov.  22,  and  the 
House  had  little  to  do. 

167  Richardson,  i,  264. 

168  Annals,  1319. 

169  Annals,   1256-1262.     There  was  talk  of  a  duel  at  one  time;   in  the 
north  Otis  was  reported  killed  by  Giles. 


WASHINGTON  AND  THE  FRENCH  WAR  59 

was  against  war  "with  any  nation  upon  the  earth ;"  he  regarded 
it  as  the  "greatest  calamity  that  could  befall  any  nation."1 
His  enemies,  however,  were  not  slow  to  press  upon  him  his  atti 
tude  in  1794  and  charged  him  with  having  then  stood  for  war 
with  Great  Britain.  Harper  indeed  read  an  extract  from  a 
speech  of  Giles  of  March  28,  1794,  on  a  motion  by  Dayton 
providing  for  the  sequestration  of  British  debts  In  order  to 
show  how  patriotic  the  Virginia  representative  had  been  at 
that  time.171  On  March  30,  Giles  declared  he  was  not  satisfied 
with  the  sincerity  of  the  proceedings  of  the  executive;  he 
wished  the  correspondence  and  instructions  of  our  ministers. 
The  House  accepted  the  challenge  and,  on  April  2,  adopted  a 
resolution  asking  for  these  documents,  and  thereafter  Giles 
was  no  longer  seen  in  the  legislative  halls.  The  triumph  of  the 
Federalists  seemed  so  complete  that  farther  resistance  appeared 
useless,  and,  besides  Giles,  during  this  same  month  many  other 
Republican  members  withdrew.172 

Before  concluding  our  discussion  of  this  meeting  of  Congress, 
it  is  necessary  to  introduce  briefly  one  other  interesting  topic. 
During  the  course  of  the  session  the  slavery  question  came  ujx. 
When  the  question  of  the  erection  of  a  government  in  the  Mis 
sissippi  Territory  was  under  consideration,  an  attempt  was 
made  to  extend  to  the  government  of  the  territory  the  pro 
vision  in  the  ordinance  of  1787  prohibiting  slavery  or  involun 
tary  servitude  except  in  punishment  of  crime.  "This  was  the 
first  debate,"  says  Benton,  "on  the  prohibition  of  slavery  in  the 
territory  which  took  place  under  the  Federal  Constitution,  and 
it  is  to  be  observed  that  the  constitutional  power  of  Congress 
to  make  the  prohibition,  was  not  questioned  by  any  speaker. 
Expedient  objections  only  were  urged."173  The  plea  of  the 
southern  members  was  that  argument,  heard  so  frequently  in 
after  years,  that  an  extension  of  slavery  over  a  larger  territory 
would  ameliorate  the  condition  of  the  slaves.  Giles  doubted 
whether  the  restriction  as  to  slavery  was  "calculated  to  amelio- 

170  Annals,  1323. 

171  Ibid,  1344. 
1T3Schouler,  i,  401. 

"*  Benton,  Abridgement,  ii,  224,  note. 


60  WILLIAM  B.  GILES 

rate  the  condition  of  the  class  of  men  alluded  to;  he  believed 
not.  On  the  contrary,  it  was  his  opinion,  that  if  the  slaves  of 
the  Southern  States  were  permitted  to  go  into  this  Western 
country,  by  lessening  the  number  in  those  states,  and  spreading 
them  over  a  large  surface  of  the  country,  there  would  be  a 
greater  probability  of  ameliorating  their  condition,  which  could 
never  be  done  whilst  they  were  crowded  together  as  they  are 
now  in  the  Southern  States."174  Nicholas  presented  the  same 
idea  and  asked  if  such  a  diffusion  should  be  carried  out  it 
would  not  be  doing  such  service  that  in  time  "it  might  be  safe 
to  carry  into  effect  the  plan  which  certain  philanthropists  have 
so  much  at  heart,  and  to  which  he  had  no  objection,  if  it  could 
be  affected,  viz :  the  emancipation  of  this  class  of  men."  "And 
when  this  country  shall  have  become  sufficiently  populous  to  be 
come  a  State,"  he  added,  "and  the  Legislature  wishes  to  dis 
countenance  slavery,  the  increase  of  slaves  may  be  prevented, 
and  such  means  taken  to  get  rid  of  slavery  altogether,  perhaps 
in  conjunction  with  other  parts  of  the  United  States,  who  by 
that  time  may  be  in  such  a  situation  as  to  admit  of  it,  as  shall 
appear  prudent  and  proper."1  Not  only  was  the  absence  of 
constitutional  discussion  and  the  views  of  the  southern  states 
men  interesting,  but  the  vote  is  suggestive — only  twelve 
Congressmen  registered  themselves  as  favorable  to  the  adoption 
of  the  restriction.176 

174  Annals,  Fifth  Congress,  2nd  Sess.,  1309. 

176  Ibid,  1310. 

176  Ibid,  1312,  (March  23,  1798.) 


CHAPTER  V 

THE  VIRGINIA  RESOLUTIONS  OF  1798  AND  THE 
ELECTION  OF  1800 

As  is  usual  with  a  political  party  in  a  period  of  triumph, 
the  Federalists  were  overbold.  Enjoying  a  temporary  pop 
ularity  through  the  publication  of  the  X.  Y.  Z.  correspondence, 
they  gave  themselves  up  to  a  policy  of  revenge  against  those 
who  had  so  severely  attacked  their  policies,  and  of  attempted 
destruction,  while  they  had  the  upper  hand,  of  that  mad  and 
dangerous  opposition  party  to  which  Giles  lent  his  peculiar 
talents.  The  Alien  Act  caused  innocent  Frenchmen  to  tremble 
for  their  safety;  the  Sedition  act  caused  Republicans  to  take 
secret  measures  for  protection.17'  Even  in  Virginia  there  was 
"a  most  respectable  part  of  our  State  who  have  been  enveloped 
in  the  X.  Y.  Z.  delusion,  and  who  destroy  our  unanimity  for 
the  present  moment."178  In  Richmond,  John  Marshall  received 
an  ovation  on  his  return  from  France179  and  the  Republicans 
seemed  on  the  defensive.  However,  the  passage  of  the  new 
Naturalization  Act  and  the  Alien  and  Sedition  laws  in  June  and 
July,  and  the  coming  of  the  tax  gatherer  caused  a  reaction. 
Although  John  Taylor,  talking  secession,180  found  apparently 
little  sympathy  and  from  Jefferson  even  met  with  a  remon 
strance,181  yet  mass  meetings  in  the  Piedmont  sections  and 
certain  counties  in  the  Tidewater  denounced  the  Alien  and 
Sedition  Acts  and  petitioned  for  their  repeal.182  One  set  of 
petitions  came  from  Amelia  County,  not  improbably  drafted 
by  Giles's  own  hand.  The  summer  was  exciting.  Even  college 

mSee  Moreau  de  Saint  Mery's  Voyage  Aux  iEtats — unis,  263.  Saint 
Mery  says  he  was  given  two  keys  to  a  retreat  for  use  in  case  his  house  was 
threatened. 

178  Jefferson  to  John  Taylor,  Nov.  26,  1798.     Writings  of  Jefferson  (Ford), 
vii,  309. 

179  Norfolk  Herald,  August  30,  1798.     Magruder's  Marshall,  129. 

180  Jefferson,  Writings   (Ford)  vii,  263. 

181  Ibid,  vii,  264. 

182  Norfolk    Herald,    1798,    1799.     Anderson,    Va.    and    Ky.    Resolutions, 
Amer.  Hist.  Review,  v,  46.    Ambler,  Sectionalism  in  Virginia,  67.     McMas- 
ter,  ii,  418. 


62  WILLIAM  BRANCH  GILES 

students  reflected  popular  opinions;  at  William  and  Mary,  on 
Commencement  day,  July  4,  1798,  young  enthusiasts  paraded 
the  streets  and  exhibited  a  representation  of  John  Adams  as 
King  receiving  an  address  from  Congress.  John  Marshal] 
on  a  visit  to  Fredericksburg  was  insulted  in  the  theatre  and 
all  but  put  out  to  the  tune  of  the  Rogues'  march.183  The 
Father  of  his  Country  during  the  last  of  August  thought  the 
crisis  so  important,  and  the  temper  of  the  people  so  "violent 
and  outrageous"  as  to  necessitate  a  conference  between  himself, 
his  nephew,  and  John  Marshall  in  view  of  the  coming  elec 
tions.184  To  the  Legislature  of  the  state,  men  looked  with  ex 
pectancy.  Long  before  that  body  met,  prominent  Republicans 
had  begun  to  plan  for  its  satisfactory  action. 

On  October  11,  Jefferson  wrote  Senator  Stevens  Thom 
son  Mason,  the  notorious  statesman  who  had  revealed  to  his 
countrymen  the  contents  of  the  Jay  Treaty:  "The  X.  Y.  Z. 
fever  has  considerably  abated  through  the  country,  as  I  am 
informed,  and  the  Alien  and  Sedition  laws  are  working  hard. 
I  fancy  that  some  of  the  state  legislatures  will  take  strong 
ground  on  this  occasion."1  Jefferson's  "fancy"  in  this  matter 
was  perfectly  correct.  During  the  same  month  at  Monticello, 
George  and  Wilson  Gary  Nicholas  probably  discussed  with 
him186  the  proper  procedure  to  be  adopted.  Thereupon  Jeffer 
son  drafted  resolutions  which  Wilson  Nicholas  handed,  under 

183  Norfolk  Herald,  July,  Sept.  1,  1798.    J.  A.  C.  Chandler  in  address  at 
Wm.  and  Mary  College,  Richmond  Dispatch,  July  8,  1900. 

184  Washington,  Writings,  (Ford)   xiv,  76,   (Aug.  27,  1798.) 

185  Ford,  vii,  283.     Randall,  ii,  448.     It  is  interesting  to  read  what  follows. 
"For  my  own  part,  I  consider  those  laws  as  merely  an  experiment  on  the 
American  mind,  to  see  how  far  it  will  bear  an  avowed  violation  of  the  con 
stitution.     If  this  goes  down  we  shall  immediately  see  attempted  another 
act  of  Congress,  declaring  that  the  President  shall  continue  in  office  during 
life,  reserving  to  another  occasion  the  transfer  of  the  succession  to  his  heirs, 
and  the  establishment  of  the  Senate  for  life.     At  least  this  may  be  the  aim 
of  the   Oliverians,  while  Monk  and  the   Cavaliers    (who   are   perhaps   the 
strongest)    may  be   playing   their    game    for   the   restoration   of   his    most 
gracious  Majesty,  George  the  Third.     That  these  things  are  in  contempla 
tion,  I  have  no  doubt;  nor  can  I  be  confident  of  their  failure,  after  the 
dupery   of  which   our   countrymen   have   shown   themselves    susceptible." 

186  See  Ford,  vii,  290,   (footnote)   for  a  letter  of  Dec.  11,  1821,  to  J.  C. 
Breckenridge.     Randall,  ii,  448. 


VIRGINIA  RESOLUTIONS  OF  1798  63 

a  pledge  of  secrecy  as  to  their  authorship,  to  John  Brecken- 
ridge  of  Kentucky,  who  happened  in  Albemarle  County  in 
October.187  These  resolutions,  in  a  modified  form,  the  Legis 
lature  of  Kentucky  adopted  during  the  next  month.  On  the 
seventeenth,188  Jefferson  sent  the  same  resolutions  to  Madison 
saying  "we  shall  distinctly  affirm  all  the  important  principles 
they  contain,"  and  on  the  twenty-sixth  wrote  John  Taylor 
"for  the  present  I  should  be  for  resolving  the  Alien  and  Sedition 
laws  to  be  against  the  constitution  &  merely  void,  and  for 
addressing  the  other  States  to  obtain  similar  declarations."189 
To  both  Madison  and  Taylor,  Jefferson  wrote  that  Repub 
licans  should  not  commit  themselves  farther  but  "reserve  our 
selves  to  shape  our  future  measures  by  the  events  which  may 
happen."  In  what  should  take  place,  Giles  proposed  to  take 
part.  Having  on  October  2,  1798,  sent  to  the  Governor  his 
resignation  from  the  House  of  Representatives,190  he  was 
elected  to  the  General  Assembly  of  Virginia  ready  to  do  his 
share  in  promoting  the  cause  of  the  Republican  party  and  in 
carrying  out  the  will  of  Thomas  Jefferson.  On  December  3,  the 
Legislature  came  together.  Partisan  feeling  was  at  its  highest. 
Former  friends,  separated  by  party  barriers,  now  refused  to 
speak  and  dared  not  stop  at  the  same  tavern.  A  Federalist  who 
entered  a  Republican  boarding  house  did  not  escape  without  a 
fight.191  The  opposition  of  the  House  of  Delegates  first  at 
tempted  to  displace  the  Republican  speaker  and  clerk;  to  an 
swer  back  with  a  bold  stroke,  John  Taylor,  on  the  next  day, 
asked  leave  to  bring  in  a  bill  "to  secure  the  freedom  of  debate 

187  It  is  sometimes  stated  that  John  Breckenridge  was  present  at  Monti- 
cello.  He  was,  however,  probably  not  in  such  a  conference,  if  it  was  held. 
The  draft  made  by  Jefferson  was  handed  to  Breckenridge  by  Wilson  Nich 
olas,  apparently  without  Jefferson's  knowledge,  and  possibly  without  his 
expectation  that  the  resolutions  would  be  proposed  in  Kentucky.  Brecken 
ridge  was  advised  by  Nicholas  not  to  go  to  see  Jefferson  for  fear  the  auth 
orship  of  the  resolutions  would  be  suspected.  See  Letter,  W.  C.  Nicholas  to 
Jefferson  Oct.  4,  1798.  Jeff.  MSS.,  Lib.  of  Congress. 

IBS  November> 

189  Ford,  Writings  of  Jefferson,  vii,  288,  311.     Randall,  ii,  452-3. 

190  Calendar,  Va.  State  Papers,  viii,  519. 

191  Chandler  above  cited. 


64  WILLIAM  B.  GILES 

and  proceedings  in  the  Assembly."1  2  Giles's  name  first  appears 
on  December  20  and  is  added  to  the  Committees  of  Courts  of 
Justice,  Propositions  and  Grievances,  and  Claims.19'  Two  days 
before,  the  speaker  had  read  a  letter  from  the  Governor  of 
Kentucky  enclosing  the  resolutions  adopted  by  the  Legislature 
of  that  state  and  "inviting  the  cooperation  of  the  General  As 
sembly  of  this  Commonwealth,  in  obtaining  a  repeal  of  certain 
acts  of  the  United  States,  passed  in  their  late  session.194  Reso 
lutions  written  by  Madison  were  offered  by  John  Taylor  and 
were  discussed  in  the  Committee  of  the  Whole.  Against  the 
resolutions  arose  many  distinguished  Federalists.  George 
Keith  Taylor,  soon  to  be  brother-in-law  of  John  Marshall, 
Henry  Lee  of  Westmoreland,  father  of  the  distinguished  Con 
federate  leader,  and  others  nearly  as  notable  threw  the  weight 
of  their  ability,  logic,  and  influence  against  the  dangerous 
document.  In  favor  of  the  resolutions  appeared  that  great 
apostle  of  strict  construction  and  influential  Republican  leader, 
John  Taylor  of  Caroline,  who  proposed  the  resolutions,  and 
Wilson  Gary  Nicholas,  William  B.  Giles,  James  Barbour,  and 
the  other  leading  Republicans.  The  debate  took  a  wide  range. 
The  Alien  and  Sedition  laws  are  constitutional,  said  the  Fed 
eralists,  because  they  promote  the  general  welfare,  because  the 
General  Government  must  guarantee  to  each  state  a  Republican 
form  of  government,  because  aliens  are  not  entitled  to  all  the 
rights  of  citizens,  because  freedom  of  speech  does  not  mean 
unrestrained  utterance.  They  are  unconstitutional,  said  the 
Republicans,  because  they  transcend  the  powers  of  Congress, 
because  they  assume  to  restrict  immigration  before  1808, 
because  they  deprive  aliens  of  jury  trial,  because  they  unite 
Legislative,  Judicial,  and  Executive  powers.  Not  only  are  they 
unconstitutional,  but  they  are  at  war  with  human  rights,  they 
promote  ignorance,  they  enlarge  executive  influence,  "and  ex 
ecutive  influence  would  produce  a  revolution."  Without  these 

192  Taylor  to  Jefferson,  Richmond,  1798.     Branch  Historical  Papers,  June 
1908,  278. 

183  Journal,  1798-1799,  29. 

194  Journal,  House  of  Delegates,  27. 


VIRGINIA  RESOLUTIONS  OF  1798  65 

laws,  feared  the  opposition,  there  might  be  "horrid  scenes  of 
desolation." 

But  the  immediate  question  was  soon  found  to  involve  much 
in  history,  law,  and  current  politics.  The  Common  Law  of 
England  is  the  basis  of  our  institutions,  declared  the  one  side; 
not  so,  shouted  the  other.  The  Constitution  of  the  United 
States  is  a  compact  of  states,  said  the  followers  of  Jefferson; 
friends  of  Hamilton  answered :  the  Constitution  is  an  emanation 
of  the  people.  The  proper  tribunal  to  decide  questions  of  con 
stitutionality  is  the  Federal  Judiciary  alone;  legislators,  it 
was  replied,  as  well  as  judges  have  taken  the  oath  to  support 
the  fundamental  compact  and  are  in  honor  bound  to  uphold 
it — to  declare  unconstitutional  acts  that  contravene  its  pro 
visions.  To  Federalists,  Frenchmen  were  very  dangerous  people 
—they  intrigued  everywhere  they  went;  and  the  government 
must  have  power  to  deal  with  them ;  only  two  such  men,  it  was 
answered,  have  been  shown  by  any  evidence  to  be  dangerous, 
and  they,  it  is  admitted,  have  sneaked  out  of  the  country.  Is 
it  necessary  "to  make  the  President  absolute  tyrant  over  per 
haps  a  million  people,  to  get  rid  of  two?"  "Finally,"  said  the 
Federalists,  "the  result  of  adopting  the  resolutions  proposed 
would  be  insurrection,  confusion,  anarchy."  Insurrection  is 
certainly  not  our  intention,  said  the  Republicans.  We  are 
making  a  pacific  overture  to  sister  states  for  cooperation  in 
securing  a  repeal  of  unconstitutional  laws.  We  are  trying 
to  maintain  the  integrity  of  our  institutions,  and  that  will  be 
productive  of  peace.  Of  Giles's  efforts  in  this  debate  we  have 
only  an  abstract  of  one  speech.  That  he  spoke  on  other  oc 
casions  and  had,  indeed,  exerted  much  influence  on  the  course 
of  the  proceedings  we  have,  however,  certain  evidence.  "When 
Taylor,"  says  Grigsby  in  his  History  of  the  Convention  of 
1788,195  "finished  his  speech  there  was  a  solemn  pause  for  a 
few  moments  in  the  proceedings  of  the  House,  when  a  member 
rose  in  his  place,  who  seemed  to  be  in  the  prime  of  manhood, 
and  who,  elegantly  dressed  in  blue  and  buff,  booted  and  spurred, 

195  Grigsby,  Convention  of  1788,  II,  328.  Grigsby  got  his  account  from 
Tazewell,  though  he  was  personally  a  friend  of  Giles. 


66  WILLIAM  BRANCH  GILES 

and  with  a  riding  whip  in  his  hand,  had  entered  the  house  just 
as  Taylor  rose  to  speak.  He  placed  his  hat  upon  his  knee, 
and  would  now  and  then  use  the  top  of  it  as  a  resting  place 
for  a  small  slip  of  paper,  on  which  he  would  scribble  a  note 

"  .  .  .  Though  his  fame  was  diffused  throughout  the 
Union,  he  had  never  spoken  on  a  great  public  question  in 
his  native  state.  But  on  this,  as  on  all  subsequent  occasions 
to  the  end  of  a  long  life,  when  he  was  called  upon  to  address 
a  public  body,  his  simple  and  sensible  narrative,  his  clear  and 
plausible  reasoning,  the  tact  with  which  he  either  spiked  the 
artillery  of  his  opponents  or  turned  its  thunders  against  them, 
and  his  familiar  knowledge  of  life  and  manners  in  Virginia, 
from  which  he  mainly  drew  his  illustrations,  produced  a  great 
sensation  in  the  House,  and  abated  at  once  and  as  if  by  magic 
the  grave  argument  and  impressive  declamation  of  Keith  Tay- 

^lor."  In  the  one  speech  of  his  that  is  preserved,  Giles  said 
he  had  for  several  years  been  observing  the  systems  pursued 
by  the  central  government  and  the  state  governments.  The 
Virginia  system  was  the  best  and  mildest ;  it  had  done  little 
mischief  and  much  good.  There  was  no  complaint  against  it 
of  injury  to  personal  property,  and  yet  it  possessed  less  energy 
than  any  other  government.  Energy  was  despotism,  it  had 
produced  party  distinctions,  the  bank,  the  sedition  law;  the 
object  of  the  sedition  law  was  the  suppression  of  a  certain 

!  party.  If  it  be  said  that  the  passage  of  these  resolutions  pro 
posed  would  produce  evil  consequences,  these  evil  consequences 
would  be  due  not  to  the  resolutions  but  to  the  laws.  The  mem 
bers  of  the  Assembly  were  under  oath  to  support  the  constitu 
tion  and  hence  could  not  throw  their  responsibility  on  the  people 
or  on  the  courts.  It  was  their  right  to  speak.  For  the  efforts  of 
the  present  government  tended  to  monarchy. 

Taking  up  the  Adams  administration,  he  declared  that  its 
exertions  were  devoted  to  inspiring  in  the  minds  of  the  people 
the  notion  of  energy.  He  denounced  the  measures  of  the  ad 
ministration  as  to  the  army  and  navy  and  declared  the  last 
Congress  had  left  nothing  undone  to  carry  us  into  monarchy 
— opposition  to  a  foreign  power  was  always  "pretence"  for 


VIRGINIA  RESOLUTIONS  OF  1798  67 

the  purpose  of  usurpation.  The  resolutions  now  offered  were 
charged  with  containing  invective.  It  was  not,  however,  terms 
that  were  unpleasant;  it  was  truth.  He  would  "be  willing  to 
use  simpler  language  if  it  could  be  found.  "But,  he  doubted 
whether  should  even  the  Lord's  prayer  be  introduced  before 
them,  and  undergo  a  criticism,  they  could  be  brought  to  agree 
to  it."  As  to  the  Alien  law  he  claimed  that  a  "stranger  coming 
into  a  country  had  a  right  to  protection,"  and  was  entitled  to 
trial  by  jury.  For  this  law  there  was  no  cause,  either  foreign 
or  domestic.  If  these  laws  were  repealed,  "the  Government  would 
be  as  firm  as  now.  The  administration  .  .  .  was  not  the 
Government.  The  Government  could  subsist  without  it."  The 
Constitution  was  the  source  of  power  for  the  government,  not 
reason  and  the  nature  of  things.  These  acts  should  be  de 
clared  unconstitutional.  Indeed,  if  members  thought  they  were 
unconstitutional,  it  was  their  duty  so  to  declare  them.  They 
had  taken  the  same  oath  to  support  the  Constitution  as  had 
the  judiciary.  He  concluded  by  moving  to  omit  the  word 
"alone"  in  the  third  paragraph;  for  the  national  government 
was  both  a  federal  and  a  social  compact.196 

The  resolutions  discussed  were  adopted  by  the  House  on 
December  21,  by  a  vote  of  100  to  63,  and  Giles's  name  appeared 
among  the  100.  Their  contents  are  familiar  to  all  students 
of  history.  Having  professed  a  "firm  resolution"  to  defend 
the  Constitutions  of  the  United  States  and  of  Virginia,  and 
expressing  a  "warm  attachment  to  the  union  of  the  states," 
they  declared  the  Constitution  a  compact  and  the  Federal  gov 
ernment  a  government  only  of  delegated  powers.  When  the 
bounds  of  those  powers  were  overstepped,  the  Constitution  was 
violated.  "In  case,"  to  quote  the  resolutions,  "of  a  deliberate, 
palpable  and  dangerous  exercise  of  other  powers  not  granted 
by  the  said  compact,  the  states,  who  are  parties  thereto,  have 
the  right,  and  are  in  duty  bound  to  interpose  for  arresting 
the  progress  of  the  evil,  and  for  maintaining  within  their  re 
spective  limits,  the  authorities,  rights  and  liberties  appertaining 

196  Resolutions  of  Virginia  and  Kentucky— and  "Debates  and  Proceed 
ings,"  etc.  Richmond  (Robert  I.  Smith),  1832. 


68  WILLIAM  B.  GILES 

to  them."  They  regretted  that  "a  spirit  has  in  sundry  in 
stances,  been  manifested  by  the  Federal  Government,  to  enlarge 
its  powers  by  forced  constructions  of  the  constitutional  chap 
ter  which  defines  them,"  and  to  expand  certain  general  phrases 
so  as  to  destroy  the  meaning  and  effect  of  the  par 
ticular  enumeration  explaining  them  "and  so  as  to  consoli 
date  the  states  by  degrees  into  one  sovereignty,  the  obvious 
tendency  and  inevitable  consequence  of  which  would  be  to  trans 
form  the  present  republican  system  of  the  United  States  into 
an  absolute,  or,  at  best  a  mixed  monarchy."  The  Alien  and 
Sedition  Acts  were  denounced  as  "palpable  and  alarming  in 
fractions  of  the  Constitution"  and  the  other  states  were  called 
upon  to  concur  in  declaring  these  acts  unconstitutional  and  to 
take  "the  necessary  and  proper  measures  .  .  .  for  co 
operating  with  this  state,  in  maintaining  unimpaired  the 
authorities,  rights,  and  liberties  reserved  to  the  states  respec 
tively,  or  to  the  people."  To  accompany  these  resolutions  an 
address  to  the  people  was  adopted,  setting  forth  the  arguments 
for  the  doctrines  enunciated.  The  minority  also  adopted  a 
statement  of  their  contentions  against  the  resolutions.  Having 
finished  the  business  of  the  session,  the  two  parties  in  Virginia 
went  before  the  people  in  a  campaign  for  the  next  session 
of  the  legislature  on  the  issue  of  the  repeal  of  the  resolutions 
of  1798  and  for  the  choice  of  members  of  Congress. 

Nothing  about  "nullification,"  it  will  be  noted,  was  said  in 
the  resolutions  described;  a  phrase  in  the  original  draft  de 
claring  the  obnoxious  acts  "null,  void,  and  of  no  effect"  was 
explicitly  rejected;  there  was  nothing  about  interposition  by  a 
single  state ;  and  the  only  practical  actions  urged  were  a  trans 
mission  of  the  resolutions  to  the  other  states  and  to  the  Virginia 
representation  in  Congress.  It  is  doubtful  whether  any  argu 
ment  whatever  can  be  deduced  from  these  resolutions  in  favor 
of  secession.  And  any  use  of  them  to  support  the  doctrines 
of  South  Carolina  in  1828-32,  with  little  doubt,  proceeds  from 
an  uncertain  interpretation.  The  recollection  of  a  man  as  able 
and  honest  as  Madison  is  worth  much,  and  he  earnestly 


VIRGINIA  RESOLUTIONS  OF  1798  69 

combatted  the  theory  that  they  intended  nullification.19'  The 
correspondence  of  leaders  and  the  debates  of  the  session  seem 
to  indicate  that  the  object  was  to  direct  attention  to  the  un 
warranted  character  of  the  acts  condemned,  and  to  effect  co 
operation  on  the  part  of  several  states  in  securing  the  repeal 
of  the  iniquitous  laws.  The  measures  of  redress  actually  pro 
posed  were  certanly  harmless  enough,  and  there  is  little  evidence 
that  any  respectable  number  of  Republicans  believed  in  1798 
that  a  state  could  remain  in  the  Union  and  disobey  the  nation 
al  laws,  however  much  legislatures  and  citizens  might  give  it  as 
their  opinion  that  these  laws  were  unconstitutional. 

However,  there  are  some  circumstances  which  seem  to  indicate 
that  Virginia  was  not  sure  that  she  might  not  need  to  do  more 
than   resolve   and  plead  with   Congress.      A  paragraph   from 
a  speech  of  Governor  Giles  in  1827  is  suggestive  of  the  feeling 
of  the  day.     "In  1798-1799,"  he  says  in  the  House  of  Dele 
gates,  "under  much  more  discouraging  circumstances  than  at 
present,  Virginia  was  again  threatened  for  daring  to   assert 
her  rights — for  daring  to  resist  the  Alien  and  Sedition  laws. 
Her  representatives  on  the  floor  were  threatened  with  arms — 
with  incarceration.     Did  they  then  meanly,  and  timidly  yield  to 
these  alarms?   No  sir!   They  determined  again  to  regain  their 
rights  or  perish  in  their  attempt.     They  went  earnestly  and 
systematically  to  work.     The  first  measure  they  then  adopted 
was   to   pass    a   law   to   protect   them   in   freedom   of   debate; 
requiring  the  State  Judges,  in  the  event  of  any  member  being 
197  Letters  of  1829-33.    Madison,  Writings,  Congress  ed.  IV,  204,  357,  358, 
etc.  Madison's  opinion  at  the  time  is  found  in  Works  (Cong,  ed.),  ii,  149-150. 
He  says  because  the  state  is  judge  of  infractions,  it  does  not  necessarily 
follow  that  the  Legislature  is.     "This  was   a  reason  of   great  weight  for 
using   general  expressions   that  would  leave   to   other   States   a   choice   of 
all  the  modes  possible  of  concurring  in  the  substance,  and  would  shield 
the    General    Assembly    against    the    charge    of    usurpation    in    the    very 
act  of  protesting  against  the  usurpations  of  Congress."    Letter  to  Jeffer 
son,  December  29,  1798.    John  Taylor  in  the  debate  said  his  object  was  to 
call    forth    public    opinion.      For    valuable    study    of    the    resolutions    see 
Warfield,  E.  D.,  Kentucky  Resolutions.     McLaughlin,  A.  C.,  Social  Com 
pact    and    Constitutional    Construction     (Am.    Hist.    Review,    v,    467)    is 
valuable  as  an  interpretation  of  the  philosophy  of  the  whole  Particularistic 
movement. 


70  WILLIAM  BRANCH  GILES 

imprisoned  for  words  used  in  debate,  to  issue  a  writ  of  habeas 
corpus ;  and  to  replace  the  incarcerated  member  in  his  place 
on  this  floor.19*  They  then  determined  to  arm  the  militia,  and 
to  make  provision  to  purchase  5,000  stands  of  arms.  Then  it 
was  sir,  that  the  foundation  for  the  regular  supply  of  arms  to 
the  militia  was  laid  in  the  establishment  of  your  armory. 19£  To 
defray  the  expenses  of  these  measures,  they  raised  the  whole 
taxes  of  the  state  twenty-five  per  cent,200  with  the  single  scrape 
of  the  pen.  Backed  by  these  measures,  they  entered  a  solemn 
protest  against  the  offensive  laws.  These  were  measures  truly 
worthy  of  Virginia. 

"Did  they  eventuate  in  war,  in  disunion?  No  sir.  They 
saved  the  Union — they  saved  the  nation.  These  measures  re 
gained  our  liberties ;  and  once  more,  we  were  free.  These 
measures  well  deserved  success ;  and  they  were  successful."2 

Giles  himself  was  among  the  most  radical  of  the  Republicans. 
Disunion  to  him  did  not  appear  so  serious  a  prospect  as  it 
did  to  Jefferson.  In  a  public  letter  of  February  21,  1799,  he 
expressed  himself  in  the  following  way : 

"As  the  measures  proposed  were  to  be  adopted  as  permanent 
systems,  I  would  rather  see  a  separation  of  the  Union  upon 
proper  and  pacific  arrangements,  than  be  perpetually  subject 
to  all  the  pernicious  consequences,  which  in  my  opinion  would 
necessarily  flow  from  them — /  considered  disunion  as  a  de 
plorable  event  but  less  deplorable,  than  a  perpetuation  of  ex 
pensive  armies,  perpetuity  of  expensive  navies,  perpetuity  of 
excessive  taxes,  and  all  the  other  oppressive  consequences 
resulting  therefrom.'"  At  a  dinner,  according  to  reliable 

198  Act  of  December  28,  1798.     Acts  of  1798,  9.     Note  Jefferson's  letter 
to  Rowan,  September  26,  in  which  he  says;   "The  habeas   corpus   secures 
every  man  here,  alien  or  citizen,  against  everything  which  is  not  law,  what 
ever    shape    it   may    assume." — That   is,   in    Virginia.      Ford,   Writings    of 
Jefferson,  vii,  281. 

199  Act,  January  23,  1798.     Randolph  in  1817  said:     "There  is  no  longer 
any  cause   for  concealing  the   fact  that  the   grand   armory   at   Richmond 
was  built  to  enable  the  State  of  Virginia  to  resist  by  force  the  encroach 
ments  of  the  then  administration  upon  her  indisputable  rights."     Adams's 
Randolph,  28. 

200  Acts,  January  23,  1799. 

201  Giles,  Political  Miscellanies— speech  in  answer  to  General  Taylor,  146. 


VIRGINIA  RESOLUTIONS  OF  1798  71 

witnesses,  he  declared  he  was  "clearly  for  separation"  and 
hoped  it  would  take  place.  Another  Republican  present 
replied :  "I  am  damn  glad  old  fellow,  to  hear  you  say  so ;  it  has 
been  my  wish  for  three  or  four  years  past.  To  which  answered 
Giles  that  belief  in  the  desirability  of  a  separation  was  a  late 
opinion  of  his,  but  he  hoped  a  separation  would  occur.202 

Giles,  it  goes  without  saying,  was  a  candidate  for  reelection 
to  the  Assembly,  his  place  in  the  House  having  been  taken  in 
December,  1798,  by  Joseph  Eggleston,  a  neighbor  and  friend. 
The  campaign  of  1799  was  a  memorable  one  in  Virginia  politics. 
Marshall  was  the  leader  of  the  Federalists  and  a  candidate  for 
Congress  against  John  Clopton.  Washington  himself  was  un 
able  to  keep  hands  off.  Writing  to  Henry  on  January  15,  1799, 
he  called  attention  to  "the  endeavors  of  a  certain  party  among 
us  to  disquiet  the  public  mind  with  unfounded  alarms ;  to  ar 
raign  every  act  of  the  administration;  to  set  the  people  at 
variance  with  their  government;  and  to  embarrass  all  its 
measures,"  and  lamented  the  leadership  of  the  state  of  Vir 
ginia  in  the  enterprise.203.  At  the  earnest  appeal  of  his 
friends,204  Henry  came  forward  to  throw  into  the  fight  his 
"weight  of  character  and  influence"  and  gave  his  last  public 
efforts  to  the  support  of  an  expanding  government  whose  for 
mation  he  had  seen  with  such  apprehensions  of  evil.20E  The 
Federalists  in  this  campaign  usually  placed  their  chief  reliance 
not  on  the  merits  of  the  Alien  and  Sedition  laws,  but  on  the 
sacredness  of  the  Constitution  and  on  the  erroneous  and  un 
wholesome  character  of  the  compact  theory  of  government.20* 
The  Republicans,  in  pamphlets  and  speeches,  stood  on  the  Reso 
lutions  of  1798,  and  denied  any  desire  for  the  dismemberment 
of  the  Union.  The  veteran  Pendleton  wrote  a  series  of  letters 

202  The   dinner   took   place   at   Lewis    Bur  well's,    Richmond.      Federalists 
gloated   over   Giles's   confession.      See   Pickering,   MSS.,   Mass.    Hist.    Soc. 
Collections. 

203  Henry's  Henry,  ii,  601. 

204  Washington  in  the  letter  quoted  urges  him.    See  also  Henry's  Henry, 
iii,  427. 

205  Henry,  speech,  Henry's  Henry,  ii,  607-610. 

206  See  their  pamphlets   and   Marshall's   answer  to  questions   of   a   free 
holder,  Ambler,  76.  Lodge,  Washington,  ii,  292. 


72  WILLIAM  B.  GILES 

under  the  caption  "Patriarchal  Address,"  published  in  Re 
publican  papers,  and  Jefferson  urged  him  to  prepare  a  shorter 
and  simpler  edition  for  the  common  mind.207  The  most  promi 
nent  men  in  the  whole  state  were  urged  to  stand  for  the  legis 
lature.  Spencer  Roane,  March  28,  1799,  urged  Monroe  and 
Madison  to  run.  This  letter  to  Monroe  is  interesting  because 
Roane  was  Henry's  son-in-law:  "I  am,"  he  said,  "credibly  in 
formed  that  P.  Henry,  Esq.,  has  offered  himself  a  delegate 
from  the  county  of  Charlotte,  and  that  there  is  little  or  no 
doubt  of  his  being  elected.  He  has  avowed,  in  a  public  speech, 
his  design  to  arrest  the  progress  of  the  State  Legislature  in 
opposing  the  measures  of  the  general  government;  which  is, 
as  I  conceive,  to  attack  the  republican  cause  in  its  last  citadel. 
You  may  judge,  from  my  connection  with  that  gentleman,  how 
I  am  chagrined  and  hurt  by  the  present  aspect  of  his  political 
opinions :  But  that  regret  has  given  place  to  an  ardent  desire 
on  my  part,  to  counteract  him,  by  every  means  tending  to 
defeat  his  schemes."208 

When  the  election  came  great  interest  was  exhibited.  Wash 
ington  rode  ten  miles  to  cast  his  vote.20'  Riots  took  place  in 
Richmond.2"  Returns  showed  that  out  of  nineteen  represen 
tatives  to  Congress,  the  Federalists  had  elected  five,  and  had 
also  elected  more  than  a  third  of  the  members  of  the  Legis 
lature.  Marshall  had  won  in  the  Richmond  district,211  Lee  in 
Westmoreland — both  by  small  majorities.  Madison,  Giles, 
Taylor  and  other  leading  Republicans  were,  of  course,  returned 
to  the  Assembly. 

That  body  assembled  on  December  second.  In  the  mean 
time,  following  the  adoption  of  the  Virginia  resolutions  of  the 
preceding  December,  a  number  of  the  states  to  which  they  had 

207  Writings  of  Jefferson  (Ford)  vii,  337. 

208  See  Roane  Correspondence,  Branch  Historical  Papers,  June  1905,  123. 

209  Randall,  ii,  495. 

810  Debates,  Virginia  Convention,  1829-30,  425. 

211  The  election  is  attributed  by  William  Wirt  Henry  to  Patrick  Henry's 
influence.  Henry  was  reported  to  be  for  Clopton.  Archibald  Blair  wrote 
him,  and  in  answer  received  a  letter  favorable  to  Marshall.  This  letter 
was  handed  around  and  a  Republican  district  was  redeemed.  Henry's 
Henry,  ii,  590-594.  Henry  also  wrote  a  letter  for  Henry  Lee. 


VIRGINIA  RESOLUTIONS  OF  1798  73 

been  sent  adopted  resolutions  condemning  the  Virginia  doc 
trines.  The  day  after  the  Assembly  convened  came  the  Govern 
or's  message  transmitting  the  replies.  They  were  thereupon  re 
ferred  to  a  committee  composed  of  Madison,  John  Taylor,  Wise, 
Giles,  George  Keith  Taylor,  Mercer  and  Daniel.212  On  the  sev 
enth,  Madison  made  his  famous  report,213  which,  after  vigorous 
debate,  was  adopted  in  the  House  by  a  vote  of  100  to  63.  An 
other  very  important  paper  was  adopted  at  this  session.  This 
was  a  set  of  resolutions  offered  by  Giles  instructing  the  Vir 
ginia  senators  in  Congress  to  urge  a  repeal  of  the  obnoxious 
laws.  A  long  preamble  expressed  "the  solicitude  of  the  Vir 
ginia  Assembly  for  disbanding  the  army  and  reinstating  the 
great  constitutional  principle  of  national  defence" — that  is  the 
employment  of  militia.  The  act  suspending  commercial  inter 
course  with  the  French  dominions  was  denounced  as  cutting  off 
an  important  market  for  Virginia  tobacco  and  in  consequence 
lowering  the  price  of  that  production  of  the  Old  Dominion. 
Condemnation  was  bestowed  upon  the  use  of  "enormous  sums 
appropriated  for  supporting  the  army  and  navy."  The  crea 
tion  of  a  navy  was  regarded  as  of  delusive  value:  "a  navy  has 
ever,"  say  the  resolutions,  "in  practice  been  known  more  as  an 
instrument  of  power,  a  source  of  expense,  an  occasion  of  col 
lisions  and  wars  with  other  nations  than  as  an  instrument  of 
defence,  of  economy,  or  of  protection  to  commerce."2  The 
Alien  and  Sedition  laws  had  already,  in  the  opinion  of  the  leg 
islature,  been  shown  to  be  unconstitutional  and  mischievous  in 
their  operation.  The  senators  were  therefore  instructed  not 
only  to  secure  a  repeal  of  these  laws  but  also  to  procure  a 
reduction  of  the  army,215  to  prevent  any  augmentation  of 
the  navy,  and  to  promote  any  proposition  reducing  it.2ie 

212  Journal,  6.    Jeff erson  had  taken  pains  to  see  that  such  a  report  would 
be    presented.      He    had    Madison    at    his    house,    and    wrote    letters    to 
Nicholas  outlining  the  contents  of  such  a  paper.     Randall,  ii,  509-510. 

218  Note  Jefferson's  draft  of  ideas  to  go  in  this  Report  in  which  he  re 
served  the  right  of  secession  for  the  future.     Randall,  ii,  509-510. 
214  Compare  this  with  Giles's  opinion  in  1812. 

213  An  exception  was  made  by  an  amendment  adding  the  words :  "unless 
such  a  measure  shall  be  forbidden  by  information  not  known  to  the  public." 

"'Journal  of  the  House  of  Delegates,  77. 


74  WILLIAM  BRANCH  GILES 

An  analysis  of  this  paper  is  given  at  length  in  order  to  make 
clear  the  philosophy  of  Giles  and  Virginia  in  this  period  of 
opposition. 

On  these  resolutions  also  there  was  a  fierce  fight.  They 
passed  the  House,  January  11,  1800,  by  a  vote  of  102  to  49. 217 
Although  few  of  his  words  during  these  years  have  come  down 
to  us,  we  know  enough  to  realize  that  Giles  was  playing  an 
important  part  in  the  Legislature  and  in  Virginia  politics.218 
The  results  of  the  contest  in  the  General  Assembly  of  Virginia 
were  prophetic  of  the  national  victory  which  the  party  of  Jef 
ferson  was  soon  to  win. 

Before  the  year  1800  had  passed  into  history,  the  first  po 
litical  revolution  since  1789  had  taken  place.  Republicanism  did 
not  rest  on  its  oars  because  of  the  victories  of  preceding  years. 
The  victory  must  be  as  nearly  complete  as  possible.  Giles's 
name  was  among  the  Republican  electors  in  1800  ;21J 
whether  he  took  any  active  part  in  the  campaign  cannot  be 
shown,  but  the  presumption  is  that  he  did  whatever  he  could  to 
promote  the  general  cause.  He,  no  doubt,  lost  no  opportunity 
to  defend  his  friend  and  leader  against  the  various  unfound 
ed  charges  brought  against  him ;  he  also  probably  deserved  some 
of  the  credit  for  the  fact  that  Amelia  County  cast  all  of  her 
votes  for  Republican  electors.  Only  eight  counties  in  Virginia 
remained  Federalist,  three  in  the  Tidewater,  one  in  the  northern 
corner  of  the  state,  and  four  west  of  the  Blue  Ridge.  Norfolk 
borough  held  loyally  to  the  faith  of  John  Adams.220  In  the 
country  at  large  Jefferson  and  Burr  had  each  received  seventy- 
three  votes  for  the  Presidency,  eight  more  than  were  received  by 
John  Adams.  The  Republicans  had  won.  After  a  disgraceful 
effort  in  the  House  on  the  part  of  the  more  unprincipled  enemies 
to  decide  the  tie  between  Jefferson  and  Burr  favorably  to  Burr, 

217  Journal  of  the  House  of  Delegates,  83. 

218  For  example.     The  Examiner,  August   13,  1803,  says  the  "Assembly 
of  '98  and  '99 — the   names  of  Taylor,   Giles,   and   Madison,  will  long  be 
revered  by  every  genuine  friend  of  liberty."    Also  Enquirer,  Dec.  16,  1830. 

219  Virginia  Calendar  of  State  Papers,  ix,  75. 

220  Virginia  Argus,  December  <2,  1800. 


VIRGINIA  RESOLUTIONS  OF  1798  75 

on  the  seventeenth  of  February,  Jefferson  was  chosen  head  of 
the  nation.  The  farmers  of  the  West  and  the  South,  with  their 
middle  state  allies,  had  defeated  the  shipbuilders  of  New  Eng 
land.  And  the  money  power  of  the  nation,  monocrats  and 
aristocrats  and  plutocrats  yielded  to  Democrats  and  reformers. 


CHAPTER  VI 
REPUBLICAN  REFORMATION :  WAR  ON  THE  COURTS 

On  March  4,  1801,  Giles  saw  his  distinguished  friend  inau 
gurated  President  of  the  United  States.  The  day  for  which 
chief  and  follower  had  been  working  for  ten  years  had  now 
come.  At  last  Giles  stood  in  the  position  as  counsellor  and 
supporter  of  an  administration  of  his  own  faith.  Prepared 
to  praise  the  new  President  for  his  achievements  and  to  con 
gratulate  him  on  his  success,  he  nevertheless  desired  him  to 
walk  in  the  straight  and  narrow  way  of  Republicanism.  And 
particularly  did  he  desire  him  to  turn  out  all  "obnoxious  men" 
and  to  save  the  offices  for  reliable  Republicans,  among  whom 
were  some  of  Giles's  own  friends  who  deserved  recognition.  To 
set  forth  his  views  and  desires  on  the  subject  it  is  thought  well 
to  give  in  full  a  letter  addressed  by  him  to  Jefferson  on  March 
16,  1801 :221 

"Amelia,  Virginia, 
March  16  1801. 

"The  President  of  the  United  States 
Sir 

"I  sincerely  congratulate  you  on  your  late  election  to  the 
Presidential  chair;  not  because  personal  aggrandizement  was 
ever  your  object,  or  is  desirable  in  itself;  but  because  in  the 
most  critical  period,  you  have  been  solemnly  called  upon  by  the 
suffrages  of  your  fellow  citizens,  to  reestablish  American  prin 
ciples,  to  correct  the  manifold  deviations  of  your  predecessors, 
and  to  administer  the  government  according  to  the  original  in 
tent  and  meaning  of  the  Constitution ;  you  have  thus  become  the 
principal  depository  of  the  dearest  rights  of  your  fellow  citi 
zens  and  to  be  instrumental  in  their  preservation  and  security, 
must  afford  the  highest  of  all  gratifications;  my  congratula 
tions  therefore  result  from  a  sense  of  the  important  services, 
which  you  can,  and  which  I  have  no  doubt  you  will  render  to 
the  Public,  and  the  happiness,  which  you  will  necessarily  derive 
from  that  circumstance. 

.#     221  Original  in  Jeff.  MSS.,  Lib.  Congress. 


REPUBLICAN  REFORMATION:   WAR  ON  THE  COURTS       77 

"I  have  seen  your  Inauguration  Speech,  and  am  highly  grati- 
fyed  with  its  contents.  I  think  the  principles  proposed  for  the 
administration,  correct  in  themselves,  happily  enforced,  and 
peculiarly  adapted  to  the  present  state  of  public  opinion.  In 
fact  it  contains  the  only  American  language,  I  ever  heard  from 
the  Presidential  chair — This  I  believe  to  be  a  very  general  opin 
ion;  But  I  am  still  of  opinion,  that  the  success  of  the  adminis 
tration,  will  depend  very  much  upon  the  manner,  in  which  those 
principles  are  carried  into  effect.  Many  of  your  best  and 
firmest  friends  already  suggest  apprehensions,  that  the  prin 
ciple  of  moderation  adopted  by  the  administration,  although 
correct  in  itself,  may  by  too  much  indulgence,  degenerate  into 
feebleness  and  inefficiency.  This  in  my  judgment  would  be  a 
most  unfortunate  circumstance,  which  could  be  attached  to 
the  administration,  and  ought  to  be  more  guarded  against,  than 
any  other.  It  would  produce  general  and  lasting  disgust  in  its 
best  friends,  and  revive  the  hopes  and  enterprises  of  its  en 
emies,  for  they  are  not  dead — they  only  sleep — a  pretty  general 
purgation  of  office,  has  been  one  of  the  benefits  expected  by  the 
friends  of  the  new  order  of  things — and  although  an  indiscrimi 
nate  privation  of  office,  merely  for  a  difference  in  political  senti 
ment,  might  not  be  expected ;  yet  it  is  expected,  and  confidently 
expected,  that  obnoxious  men  will  be  ousted.  It  can  never  be 
unpopular,  to  turn  out  a  vicious  man  and  put  a  virtuous  one 
in  his  room;  and  I  am  persuaded  from  the  prevalence  of  the 
vicious  principles  of  the  late  administration,  and  the  universal 
loyalty  of  its  adherents  in  office,  it  would  be  hardly  possible 
to  err  in  exclusions ;  at  the  same  time  I  heartily  approve  of 
that  part  of  your  speech,  which  recognizes  justice,  as  the  right 
of  the  minority,  as  well  as  the  majority.  But  I  believe  that 
justice,  would  be  the  most  formidable  of  all  terrors,  to  the 
description  of  persons,  to  whom  I  allude.  It  appears  to  me, 
that  the  only  check  upon  the  Judiciary  system  as  it  is  now 
organized  and  filled,  is  the  removal  of  all  its  executive  officers 
indiscriminately.  The  judges  have  been  the  most  unblushing 
violators  of  constitutional  restrictions  and  their  officers  have 
been  the  humble  echoes  of  all  their  vicious  schemes,  to  retain 


78  WILLIAM  BRANCH  GILES 

them  in  office  would  be  to  sanction  the  pollution  of  the  very 
fountain  of  justice,  taking  it  for  granted,  therefore,  that  this 
salutary  check  will  be  applyed,  and  particularly  in  this  state 
where  there  has  been  as  gross  a  violation  of  the  most  sacred 
principles  in  the  administration  as  can  possibly  occur,  I  take 
the  liberty  of  mentioning  to  you  a  neighbor  of  mine,  as  properly 
qualified  to  fill  the  office  of  marshall  for  this  district  of  Vir 
ginia,  when  the  same  shall  be  vacated. 

"This  gentleman,  to  whom  I  allude,  is  Wm  Davis  Meade. 
a  Gentleman,  who  has  been  firm  and  uniform  in  his  principles, 
in  the  worst  of  times,  of  amiable  and  delicate  mind  and  man 
ners,  and  who  is  universally  respected  by  his  acquaintances. 
He  is  connected  to  the  sister  of  the  present  marshall,  a  lady 
extremely  amiable  and  universally  respected,  and  permit  me  to 
urge  the  recommendation  by  one  more  observation;  that  the 
emoluments  of  the  office  would  be  a  material  aid  to  Mr.  Meade's 
pecuniary  situation. 

"I  have  taken  the  liberty,  when  suddenly  called  on  by  Mr. 
Meade,  to  make  this  frank  communication  to  you,  in  the  con 
fidence  that  it  will  be  well  received,  and  duly  appreciated. 
My  sole  view  has  been  to  give  some  intimation  with  candor, 
which  I  thought  it  material  for  you  to  receive,  and  I  rely  with 
perfect  confidence  that  your  desicions  respecting  them  will  be 
correct. 

"Be  pleased  to  accept  the  most  ardent  wishes  for  the  success 
of  your  administration,  and  assurances  of  my  most  affectionate 
regards  for  your  person. 

Wm  B.  Giles." 

The  desires  of  Giles  somewhat  boldly  expressed  in  this 
letter  were  perfectly  natural.  The  Federalists,  during  the  ad 
ministrations  of  Washington  and  Adams,  had  secured  posses 
sion  of  nearly  all  offices.  Capable  and  patriotic  Republicans 
found  themselves  uniformly  excluded  under  the  principle  that 
any  other  policy  would  be  "political  suicide"  for  the  adminis 
tration.  Republicans  had  particular  right  to  complain  of  the 
appointments  made  by  Adams  during  his  last  days  of  office, 
appointments  of  judicial  officers  made  apparently  for  the  pur- 


REPUBLICAN  REFORMATION:   WAR  ON  THE  COURTS       79 

pose  of  entrenching  the  Federalists  in  power.222  This  conduct 
good  Republicans,  working  faithfully  without  reward  for  many 
years  and  looking  forward  patiently  to  the  time  of  their  vic 
tory,  could  not  countenance.  Many  desired  a  complete  over 
turning.  On  March  23,  Jefferson  answered  Giles's  letter  of  the 
sixteenth  and  laid  down  his  principles  in  regard  to  the  matter 
of  appointments.223  "All  appointments  to  civil  office  during 
pleasure,  made  after  the  event  of  the  election  was  certainly 
known,"  all  office  holders  guilty  of  misconduct,  and  marshals 
and  attorneys  of  the  Federal  courts  were  to  be  removed.  But 
he  hoped  by  a  generous  policy  in  other  cases  to  bring  back  into 
the  fold  those  who  deserted  in  the  year  of  X.  Y.  Z.,  and  by 
these  means  to  restore  "harmony  and  union"  to  the  country. 

In  response  to  the  President's  request  for  further  views  came 
a  letter  from  Giles  dated  June  1.  He  had  delayed  a  reply  partly 
because  the  contents  of  Jefferson's  letter  "so  fully  explained 
the  principles  which  would  govern  your  administration,  and 
which  were  so  completely  in  unison  with  my  opinions  on  that 
subject  that  I  had  no  additional  observations  to  make  at  that 
time."  However,  in  order  to  keep  the  President  up  to  the  mark 
from  which  it  was  feared  he  might  depart,  as  indeed  he  had 
already  done,  Giles  proceeded,  "I  find  the  soundest  Republicans 
in  this  place  [Richmond]  and  throughout  the  country  are 
rising  considerably  in  the  tone  which  they  think  ought  to  be 
observed  by  the  administration;  The  ejected  party  is  now  al 
most  universally  considered,  as  having  been  employed  in  con 
junction  with  G.  B.,  in  a  scheme  for  the  total  destruction  of  the 
liberties  of  the  people  it  is  therefore  sunk  or  is  fast  sinking 
into  utter  hatred  and  contempt.  The  compleat  distress  of  the 
party  therefore,  is  the  object  which  all  would  approve,  and 
many  will  demand;  the  only  difficulty  consists  in  the  choice  of 
the  means  to  effect  this  object.  It  is  generally  believed  here 
that  any  countenance  given  to  the  leaders  of  that  party  in  any 
department  would  tend  to  improve  its  execution"  and,  "under 

222Bassett,  Federalist  System,  294.  For  contrary  view  see  Farrand  in 
in  Am.  Hist.  Review,  v,  682. 

223  Writings  of  Jefferson  (Ford),  viii,  25.     See  also  letter  to  Wm.  Findley, 


80  WILLIAM  B.  GILES 

that  idea,"  Giles  objected  to  "the  continuation  of  Mr.  King  in 
London"  and  said  the  nomination  of  Mr.  Pinckney  to  Spain  "is 
regretted  by  some  of  the  soundest  friends  of  the  administra 
tion."  What  concerned  "the  thinking  Republicans"  most  was 
"the  situation  of  judiciary  as  now  organized."  "It  is  constant 
ly  asserted  that  the  revolution  is  incomplete,  so  long  as  that 
strong  fortress  is  in  possession  of  the  enemy ;  and  it  is  surely  a 
most  singular  circumstance,  that  the  public  sentiment  should 
have  forced  itself  into  the  Legislative  and  Executive  depart 
ments,  and  that  the  Judiciary  should  not  onlyf  acknowledge  its 
influence,  but  should  pride  itself  in  resisting  its  will  under  the 
misapplyed  idea  of  'Independence'."  "No  remedy,"  in  his  judg 
ment,  was  "competent  to  redress  the  evil,  but  an  absolute  repeal 
of  the  whole  judiciary  system,  terminating  the  present  offices, 
and  creating  an  entire  new  system  defining  the  common  law 
doctrine,  and  restraining  to  the  proper  Constitutional  extent 
the  jurisdiction  of  the  courts."  In  a  few  days  he  expected  to  be 
in  "the  federal  city"  and  would  be  pleased  to  hear  the  Presi 
dent's  reflections  on  this  subject.22'1  The  truth  seemed  to  be  that 
Jefferson  was  too  moderate  entirely  to  please  the  radical  sec 
tion  of  his  party. 

Giles,  while  expressing  his  harmony  with  the  President  in  the 
letter  quoted,  was,  as  we  have  seen,  very  emphatic  about  "the 
compleat  distress  of  the  Federalist  Party."  He  did  not  approve 
of  the  continuance  of  King  and  the  appointment  of  Pinckney, 
though  he  must  have  delighted  in  the  undermining  of  his  old 
opponents,  Vans  Murray  and  William  Smith,  and  the  overthrow 
of  John  Adams's  son,  John  Quincy,  by  the  abolition  of  the  mis 
sions  to  Holland,  Portugal,  and  Prussia.22*  He  wished  also  the 
"absolute  repeal  of  the  whole  judiciary  system."  He  was,  no 
doubt,  among  those  who  had  looked  forward  to  a  "pretty  gen 
eral  purgation  of  office." 

224  Jefferson  MSS.,  Library  of  Congress. 

Giles  had  hoped  that  the  Spanish  mission  would  be  "dispensed  with 
especially  as  the  Republican  party  has  called  attention  with  particular 
emphasis  to  the  diplomatic  department."  Letter  of  June  1. 

225  John  Quincy  Adams,  however,  had  already  been  recalled  by  his  father, 
Schouler,  ii,  12. 


REPUBLICAN  REFORMATION:   WAR  ON  THE  COURTS       81 

Jefferson  realized  the  situation  and  wrote  to  Doctor  Rush  as 
early  as  March  24,  1801,  "I  know  that  in  stopping  thus  short 
in  the  career  of  removal,  I  shall  give  great  offence  to  many  of 
my  friends.  That  torrent  has  been  pressing  me  heavily,  & 
will  require  all  my  force  to  stand  up  against ;  but  my  maxim  is 
'flat  justitia,  ruat  coelum.'  After  the  first  unfavorable  impres 
sions  of  doing  too  much  in  the  opinion  of  some,  too  little  in  that 
of  others,  shall  be  got  over,  I  should  hope  a  steady  line  of  con 
ciliation  very  practicable,  and  that  without  yielding  a  single 
Republican  principle."2  Jefferson  "behaved,"  says  one  of  his 
biographers,  "with  a  liberality  toward  his  opponents  which  has 
never  been  rivalled  by  any  of  his  successors,  save  only  John 
Quincy  Adams,  and  which  since  the  days  of  Andrew  Jackson 
would  be  regarded  as  nothing  less  than  quixotic."227  Jefferson's 
plan  was  wiser  than  that  of  such  enthusiasts  as  his  friend  Giles. 
"If  we  can,"  he  said,  "but  avoid  shocking  their  feelings  by  un 
necessary  acts  of  severity  against  their  late  friends,  they  will  in 
a  little  time  cement  &  form  one  mass  with  us,  &  by  these 
means  harmony  &  union  be  restored  to  our  country,  which 
would  be  the  greatest  good  of  all."2  That  policy,  in  the  main, 
Jefferson  carried  out.  On  March  49  1801,  according  to  Chan- 
ning,  there  were  385  officials  subject  to  presidential  removal; 
183  of  them  were  in  office  March  4,  1805.  When  it  fell  to  his 
lot  "to  appoint  a  full  set  of  commissioners  of  bankruptcy  under 
the  act  of  1801,  he  distributed  them  impartially  between  Repub 
licans  and  Federalists."2  '  The  President's  policy  proved  right 
— the  Federalists  were  absorbed,  though  in  the  process,  their 
principles  were  absorbed  with  them.  Finally,  however,  the  old 
Republicans  like  Giles  and  John  Randolph,  and  even  Jefferson 
himself  saw  what  had  happened  and  looked  upon  the  situation 
with  alarm. 

Thus  were  matters  proceeding  when  Congress  assembled  on 
December  7,  ,1801,  for  its  first  session  under  the  new  regime. 
Many  old  faces  which  Giles  had  seen  in  Congress  in  1798  were 
'-'**  Works  (Ford),  viii,  30. 

327  Morse,  194. 
".    ^  Letter,  August  26,  1801.    Works  (Ford),  viii,  25.   « 

**  Channing,  Jeffersonian  System,  17. 


82  WILLIAM  BRANCH  GILES 

no  longer  present  in  the  basement  which  now  served  as  tempo 
rary  quarters.  Some  of  his  most  prominent  friends  had  been 
raised  by  Jefferson  to  executive  position,  and  his  most  promi 
nent  enemies  had  been  engulfed  in  the  waves  of  Republican  suc 
cess.  In  both  Senate  and  House  the  dominant  party  now 
boasted  of  a  majority — in  the  House  of  two  to  one.  The  Speak 
er  was  Nathaniel  Macon  of  North  Carolina ;  the  Chairman  of 
the  Ways  and  Means  Committee,  despite  Giles's  superior  claims, 
was  John  Randolph  of  Roanoke,  loved  companion  of  the  great 
North  Carolinian  and  orator  in  the  famous  election  of  1799  in 
Virginia.  But  the  leader  of  the  majority  on  the  floor  of  the 
House  was  Giles  and  his  chief  opposer,  James  A.  Bayard  of 
Delaware.230 

The  message  which  on  December  8  Jefferson  sent  to  Congress, 
instead  of  reading  it  in  person  as  had  been  the  practice  with  for 
mer  Presidents,  was  conspicuous  because  of  its  moderation. 
It  was  written,  not  in  the  language  of  a  violent  revolutionist,  but 
in  the  words  of  a  cautious  and  thoughtful  reformer.  Also  sig 
nificant  was  its  avoidance  of  anything  having  the  tone  of  com 
mand.  He  did  not  order  Congress,  but  in  a  large  way  he 
suggested  for  their  consideration  certain  broad  themes  which 
they  doubtless  had  already  in  mind.  It  was  in  this  calm  and 
seductive  manner,  careful  to  avoid  all  appearance  of  being  a 
master,  that  he  had  drawn  around  him  his  great  party,  had  held 
it  together,  year  after  year,  until  he  had  marched  with  it  to 
victory.  And  it  was  this  spirit  which  was  to  give  him  such 
marked  success  in  directing  the  work  of  his  administration. 
Such  methods  only  could  succeed  in  handling  followers  like  Giles, 
Randolph,  and  Macon,  men  often  responding  readily  to  sugges 
tion  and  capable  of  loyalty  but  perfectly  independent  and  ready 
to  resent  too  free  a  use  of  the  party  lash.  Announcing  that 
peace  had  been  restored  to  sister  nations  and  thanking  God  for 
the  preservation  of  our  own,  the  President  proceeded  to  describe 
the  insults  inflicted  on  us  by  the  Barbary  powers  and  to  ask  Con 
gress  to  consider  "whether,  by  authorizing  measures  of  offense 
also,  they  will  place  our  force  on  an  equal  footing  with  that  of 

880  Schouler,  ii,  20-21. 


REPUBLICAN  REFORMATION:   WAR  ON  THE  COURTS       83 

its  adversaries."  He  recommended  economy  and  retrenchment 
in  army,  navy,  and  civil  service,  to  the  end  that  internal  taxes 
might  be  abolished.  He  further  recommended  a  consideration 
of  the  judiciary  system,  "and  especially  that  portion  of  it  re 
cently  erected."  "A  revisal  of  the  laws  on  the  subject  of  natur 
alization",  so  that  the  number  of  years  requisite  for  citizenship 
might  be  reduced,  he  thought  should  be  made  as  an  act  of  justice 
to  "unhappy  fugitives"  and  "oppressed  humanity."2 

Postponing  for  the  present  a  consideration  of  all  other  mat 
ters,  I  will  proceed  at  once  to  a  discussion  of  that  measure  in 
which  Giles  was  most  interested.  The  letters  which  he  had  writ 
ten  Jefferson  just  after  the  inauguration  had,  as  we  have  seen, 
expressed  a  desire  for  "an  absolute  repeal  of  the  whole  judiciary 
system,  terminating  the  present  offices."  The  beginning  of  that 
work  took  place  in  the  Senate,  January  6,  1802,  when  John 
Breckenridge  of  Kentucky  moved  a  repeal  of  the  act  of  Febru 
ary  13,  1801.  The  Senate  on  February  3,  passed  a  bill  to  carry 
that  resolution  into  effect  by  the  vote  of  16  to  15.  The  Bill 
came  down  to  the  House  and  Giles  became  its  sponsor.  The 
opposition  was  defeated  in  its  attempt  to  postpone  the  con 
sideration  of  the  subject  and  the  House  went  into  Committee  of 
the  Whole.  Discussion  began  on  February  16,  and  continued 
for  a  month.  Giles's  principal  speech  was  delivered  on  Febru 
ary  18,  the  strongest,  clearest,  and  most  logical  of  all  his  argu 
ments  in  the  House  of  Representatives.  Taking  a  wide  range  he 
went  back  to  the  origin  of  parties,  and  attempted  to  show  the 
monarchical  tendencies  of  the  Federalists.  Particularly  favored 
by  the  circumstances  under  which  they  conducted  the  govern 
ment,  "a  vast  excitement  of  Federal  fervor"  at  the  beginning  of 
our  history  as  a  country,  and  the  fact  that  during  the  first  two 
terms  of  office  the  "Chief  Executive  Magistrate  possessed  a 
greater  degree  of  popularity  and  the  confidence  of  the  people 
than  ever  was,  or  perhaps  ever  will  be  again  attached  to  the  per 
son  occupying  that  dignified  station,"  they  had  built  up  a  sys 
tem  of  patronage,  a  system  of  dependence  on  the  influence  of  the 
wealthy,  new  forms  of  taxation  and  other  reprehensible  arrange- 

281  Richardson,  Messages  and  Papers  of  the  Presidents,  1,  326  (Dec.  8, 
1801). 


84  WILLIAM  B.  GILES 

ments.  He  accused  them,  after  knowing  that  their  period  of 
rule  was  over,  of  attempting  to  intrench  themselves  in  some  part 
of  the  government — the  judiciary.  Hence  their  bill  of  1801. 
The  past  administration,  which  needed  an  unconstitutional  sedi 
tion  act  and  arbitrary  imprisonment  to  protect  itself  against 
unpalatable  criticism,  he  contrasted  with  the  present  executive 
who  needed  not  such  aid  but  invited  inquiry.  Taking  up  the 
constitutionality  of  the  repeal  of  the  judiciary  act,  and  quoting 
the  clause  in  the  constitution  saying  judges  "shall,  at  stated 
times,  receive  for  their  services  a  compensation  which  shall  not 
be  diminished  during  their  continuance  in  office,"  he  contended 
that  the  office  was  not  the  vested  property  of  a  judge  but  was 
held  in  trust  for  the  people.  The  framers  of  the  Constitution 
did  not  intend  to  establish  sinecures  but  expected  services  from 
the  judges  and,  the  value  of  these  services  they  left  Congress 
to  determine.  Furthermore,  the  power  to  "unordain  or  abolish" 
was  a  necessary  inference  from  the  power  to  "ordain  and  estab 
lish."  He  pointed  out  the  consequences  of  the  doctrine  that 
such  a  law  as  that  now  attacked  could  not  be  repealed,  showed 
that  other  attempts  like  the  one  now  condemned  could  be  made, 
in  a  period  of  party  rage,  and  that  a  party  in  power  might  bul 
wark  itself  in  new  judicial  offices  to  a  perpetual  increase  of 
judges  and  salaries.  This  doctrine  that  judges  could  not  be 
removed  by  destroying  their  offices  would  erect  the  judges  "into 
a  body  politic  and  corporate,  in  perpetual  succession,  with  cen 
sorial  and  controlling  powers  over  the  other  departments."  By 
claiming  to  be  judges  in  the  last  resort  on  the  constitutionality 
of  laws  the  court  had  already  made  unlimited  claims  to  power. 
The  doctrine  of  the  great  power  of  the  judges  was  a  doctrine 
of  irresponsibility  and  despotism,  and  was  an  "express  avowal, 
that  the  people  were  incompetent  to  govern  themselves."  Be 
sides,  the  judiciary  system  involved  an  enormous  expense  and 
the  extra  expense  entailed  by  the  act  of  1801  was  unnecessary. 
In  Virginia  when  the  business  had  been  largest  he  had  never 
heard  the  smallest  complaint  of  the  inadequacy  of  the  former 
courts.  And  it  was  not  to  be  forgotten  that  the  new  system  of 
the  Federalists  had  a  tendency  "to  produce  a  gradual  demolition 


REPUBLICAN  REFORMATION:   WAR  ON  THE  COURTS       85 

of  the  State  courts,  by  multiplying  the  number  of  courts,  in 
creasing  their  jurisdiction  .  .  .  bringing  federal  justice 
to  every  man's  door."2 

This  speech  called  down  upon  Giles  the  wrath  of  the  opposing 
party.  Bayard,  a  favorite  antagonist,  answered  in  high  temper, 
taking  particular  offense  at  Giles's  introductory  contrast  be 
tween  the  two  parties. 23!;  Giles  protested  he  was  misrepresented, 
but  though  unable  to  defend  himself  on  account  of  illness  was 
defended  in  his  absence  by  John  Randolph  of  Roanoke,234  who 
regretted  Giles's  absence  as  "he  had  today  lost  the  triumph 
which,  yesterday,  he  could  not  have  failed  to  enjoy;  that  of 
seeing  his  opponents  reduced  to  the  wretched  expedient 
of  perverting  and  mutilating  his  arguments  through  in 
ability  to  meet  and  answer  them."  This  debate  throws  some 
light  on  the  position  which  Giles  now  had  gained  in  party  coun 
sels.  One  member  called  him  the  "premier  or  prime  minister  of 
the  day."2  There  was  discussion  as  to  whether  members  were 
not  unduly  influenced  by  the  gentleman  from  Virginia.236  Bay 
ard  himself  spoke  of  the  line  of  conduct  that  might  have  been 
expected  "from  that  sentiment  of  magnanimity  which  ought  to 
have  been  inspired  by  a  sense  of  the  high  ground  he  holds  on  the 
floor  of  this  House,  as  from  the  professions  of  a  desire  to  con 
ciliate,  which  he  had  so  repeatedly  made  during  the  session.237 
From  the  course  of  this  debate,  it  is  plain  that  Giles  had  become 
the  House  leader  for  the  administration.  The  older  leader, 
Madison,  was  now  Secretary  of  State. 

232  Annals,   Seventh  Cong.,   1st  session,   February   18,   1802.     This   speech 
of  Giles  called   forth   an  essay  by  Alexander  Hamilton.     See   Hamilton's 
Works,  ed.  by   H.   C.   Lodge,  vii,  304   and  note.     In  Virginia  the   speech 
was  circulated  in  many  counties.     Particular  pains  were  taken  by  Feder 
alists  to  answer  it.     See  Va.  Gazette,  July  3,  1802. 

233  For  an  account  of  this  debate  unfavorable  to  Giles  and  complimen 
tary  to  Bayard,  see  Adams's   History  of  the  United  States,  i,  ch.  xi.     It 
should   be    noticed   that    Giles    was    not    the   member    responsible    for   the 
introduction   of  strong   language.     See   Annals,    Seventh    Cong.,    1st   Sess., 
530  et  seq.,  595,  and  compare  Adams. 

234  Annals,  Seventh  Cong.,  1st  Sess.,  650. 

235  Ibid,  666. 
238  Ibid,   887. 
237  Ibid,   603. 


86  WILLIAM  BRANCH  GILES 

As  to  the  merits  of  the  question  discussed  in  this  debate,  there 
seems  opportunity  for  only  one  opinion.  The  Act  of  1801  had 
been  passed,  February  13,  1801,  at  a  time  when  the  result  of  the 
election  of  1800  was  known,  when  John  Adams  had  but  nine 
teen  more  days  in  office,  when  the  contest  between  Jefferson  and 
Burr  was  going  on  in  the  House.  To  say  that  the  establishment 
of  new  offices  on  the  eve  of  the  first  great  party  change  in  our 
history  was  solely  for  purposes  of  efficiency  is  to  be  guilty  of 
amazing  credulity.  Senator  Gunn  of  Georgia  had  revealed  the 
motive  of  the  Federalists  when  he  said  to  Hamilton:  "If  neg 
lected  by  the  Federalists,  the  ground  will  be  occupied  by  the 
enemy  the  very  next  session  of  Congress,  and  sir,  we  shall  see 
and  many  other  scoundrels  placed  on  the  seat  of 
justice."238  They  likewise  provided  for  the  reduction  of  the 
Supreme  Court  at  the  next  vacancy  from  five  to  four  associates, 
and  created  an  opportunity  to  fill  the  office  of  Chief  Justice  by  a 
distinguished  member  of  their  own  party.  The  claim  that  the 
new  court  and  its  attendant  offices  were  necessary  for  the  trans 
action  of  the  judicial  business  of  the  country  was  met  and  re 
futed  in  the  debates  ;239  it  also  is  refuted  by  the  additional  fact 
that  the  arrangement  provided  by  the  Republicans  in  1802  was 
sufficient  for  the  legal  business  of  the  country  till  after  the  Civil 
War.  The  Constitutional  question  seems  equally  clear — the  con 
tention  that  a  court  once  created  cannot  be  abolished  because 
the  judicial  officers  to  whom  it  gives  employment  will  be  dis 
placed,  if  carried  into  practical  operation,  might  mean  the 
preservation  of  a  system  useless  and  burdensome  to  the  country, 
would  assume  that  in  this  peculiar  instance  an  act  once  passed 
by  an  infallible  Congress  could  never  be  repealed. 

But  to  the  Federalists  of  the  day  the  conduct  of  the  Republi 
cans  meant  the  wiping  away  of  old  landmarks,  the  ushering  in 
of  a  horrible  era  of  destruction.  It  was  an  evidence  of  "that 
spirit  of  innovation"  which  had  "prostrated  before  it  a  great 
part  of  the  old  world — every  institution  which  the  wisdom  and 
experience  of  ages  had  reared  up  for  the  benefit  of  man."  It 

288  Hamilton,  Works   (Hamilton  ed.),  vi,  483. 

289  Contrast  Adams,  History  of  the  U.  S.,  i,  297  and  Farrand  in  Ameri 
can  in  Hist.  Review,  v,  682.     See  Annals,  Seventh  Cong.,  601. 


REPUBLICAN  REFORMATION:   WAR  ON  THE  COURTS       87 

was  this  spirit  which  in  Europe  had  "swept  before  it  every  ves 
tige  of  law,  religion,  morality,  and  rational  government."  It 
made  its  appearance  in  Congress  on  the  seventh  of  December; 
and  behold  courts  were  rooted  up ;  taxes  were  abolished,  the  mint 
destroyed,  and  the  doors  of  the  country  thrown  open  to  "out 
casts  of  society."2  Reformers  of  all  ages  have  been  known  by 
their  opponents  as  "outcasts  of  society,"  "desperate  innova 
tors"  and  the  like,  and  the  Jeffersons  and  the  Gileses  did  not 
escape  the  usual  fate  of  "forward  looking"  men. 

Interest  is  added  to  this  controversy  from  the  point  of  view 
of  a  student  of  Virginia  history  because  several  times  in  the 
history  of  Virginia  a  similar  question  has  arisen.  In  1788  the 
act  constituting  the  High  Court  of  Appeals  was  repealed  and 
a  new  court  was  created.  It  is  true  the  old  judges  were  re- 
elected  but  only  in  regular  competition  with  other  candidates 
for  their  position.241  Two  men  who  were  present  in  the  General 
Assembly  in  1788,  Stevens  Thomson  Mason  and  Wilson  Gary 
Nicholas,  were  members  of  the  Senate  of  the  United  States  in 
1802  and  introduced  into  the  debate  the  precedent  to  which  I 
have  referred.242  Many  years  later,  in  1829-1830,  the  same 
question  was  to  be  fought  over  in  a  Virginia  Constitutional 
Convention ;  Giles  and  John  Marshall  were  to  participate  in  an 
animated  discussion;  and  the  controversy  of  1801-1802  was  to 
be  reviewed  in  their  arguments. 

Another  act  was  passed  later  in  the  session  rearranging  the 
circuit  courts  and  postponing  the  next  session  of  the  Supreme 
Court  until  February,  1803.243  The  postponement  may  have 
been  for  the  purpose  of  preventing  the  Supreme  Court  from 
declaring  the  act  of  repeal  unconstitutional.  The  other  admin 
istration  bills  received  support  from  Giles.  He  spoke  in  defence 
of  the  resolution  to  authorize  the  President  more  effectually  to 
protect  our  commerce  against  the  Barbary  powers.  Realizing 
that  he  had  previously  been  one  of  the  bitterest  critics  of  the 
policy  of  founding  a  navy,  he  took  the  position  that  an  emer- 


240  Speech  of  Henderson,  Annals,  530, 
241Grigsby,   Convention   of    1788,   ii,   192-193. 
948  Annals  of  Congress,  Seventh  Cong.,  1st  Sess.,  64. 
243  Act  of  April  29,  1802. 


88  WILLIAM  B.  GILES 

gency  had  now  occurred  and  the  augmentation  of  the  navy  was 
defensible.244  He  supported  the  resolution  for  an  inquiry  into 
the  accounts  of  the  late  Secretary  of  State,  Timothy  Picker 
ing. 24£  He  offered  on  January  29,  the  resolution  for  the  aboli 
tion  of  the  mint,246  and  on  the  eighth  of  February  he  made  a 
speech  in  defence  of  the  resolution.  He  said  that  he  had  always 
been  opposed  to  the  mint  on  the  ground  that  it  was  not  self-sup 
porting.  "There  is  a  difference,"  he  proceeded,  "between  this 
and  other  countries.  Other  nations  need  to  coin  their  own 
money ;  it  is  not  with  them  the  general,  but  the  partial  good ;  it 
is  aggrandizement  of  individuals,  the  trappings  of  royalty. 
Here,  it  is  true,  you  established  a  Mint ;  you  have  raised  armies 
and  fleets,  etc.,  to  create  an  Executive  influence ;  but  what  do  the 
people  say  now?  They  send  men  here  to  govern,  who  shall  not 
govern  for  themselves,  but  for  the  people."247  This  bill  was 
passed  in  the  House  on  April  26  but  was  rejected  by  the  Senate. 
Giles  voted  for  the  fugitive  slave  bill  reported  on  December  18, 
imposing  a  fine  of  $500  for  employing  a  strange  negro  without 
advertising  a  description  of  the  fugitive  in  two  papers.248  Al 
though  he  moved  a  resolution  that  the  apportionment  of  Repre 
sentatives  under  the  new  census  should  be  on  the  basis  of  one 
member  for  every  thirty-three  thousand  people,  the  ratio  in 
effect  since  1791,  he  soon  shifted  to  his  old  position  and  sup 
ported  the  ratio  of  one  to  thirty  thousand,  on  the  ground  of  a 
desire  to  protect  the  small  states  and  maintain  the  confidence  of 
the  people.249  The  ratio  of  one  to  thirty-three  thousand 
became  the  law.250 

One  of  the  most  important  acts  which  Giles  supported  was 
that  of  April  30,  1802,  allowing  Ohio  to  organize  preparatory 
to  admission  into  the  Union  as  a  state.  On  January  29,  he  had 
offered  a  resolution  for  the  consideration  of  the  propriety  of 
enabling  the  territory  to  form  a  state  government  and  was  the 

244  Annals,   Seventh   Cong.,   1st   Sess.,   327-329,   998. 

245  Ibid,  320. 

246  Ibid,  472,  484,   1237.     On  the  latter  page  the  bill  is  given. 

247  Ibid,  489. 

248  Ibid,  Jan.  18. 

249  Ibid,  325,  334,  338. 
260  Ibid,  Appendix,  1301. 


REPUBLICAN  REFORMATION:   WAR  ON  THE  COURTS       89 

chairman  of  the  committee  to  whom  the  matter  was  referred. 
Taking  counsel  with  Gallatin  in  regard  to  the  contents  of  the 
bill,  he  made  a  report  March  31,  1802.251  To  Gallatin  was  due 
the  provision  in  the  act  of  admission,  which  set  apart  one 
thirty-sixth  of  the  land  for  the  use  of  schools  and  provided  that 
one-twentieth  of  the  proceeds  of  the  sale  of  national  land  in  the 
state  should  be  devoted,  under  authority  of  Congress  and  with 
the  consent  of  the  states  through  which  they  shall  pass,  to  the 
laying  out  of  turnpikes  or  other  roads  from  the  east  to  the 
Ohio  River  and  of  roads  within  Ohio  itself.255  In  strange  con 
trast  with  Giles's  later  position  on  internal  improvements  was 
that  now  taken  in  defence  of  that  policy  by  this — in  days  gone 
by  and  in  days  to  come — ardent  adherent  of  the  doctrines  of 
narrow  constitutional  construction.  "Where  measures  were  de 
vised  whose  great  object  was  the  general  benefit,  though  they 
might  be  attended  with  local  advantages,  he  had  no  objection  to 
them."  He  considered  the  circumstances  of  connecting  the 
different  parts  of  the  Union  by  every  tie  as  well  of  liberal  policy 
as  of  facility  of  communication  highly  desirable."253  The 
country  was  placed  in  a  peculiar  situation.  "We  have  waters 
running  to  the  East — they  to  the  West;  and  the  Committee 
thought  it  was  desirable  to  connect  these  by  good  roads.  With 
the  Committee  state  principles  or  interests  had  no  influence. 
They  were  governed  by  general  principles  and  the  common  in 
terest."  Federalists,  such  as  Griswold  of  Connecticut,  opposed 
the  provision  for  internal  communication  on  the  pretext  that 
they  saw  in  it  a  scheme  to  benefit  Virginia  and  Pennsylvania,  and 
particularly  Albert  Gallatin,  Secretary  of  Treasury,  who  had 
an  estate  in  the  western  part  of  Pennsylvania.254  However,  the 
measure  was  passed  and  the  name  of  Giles  is  honorably  asso 
ciated  both  with  the  admission  of  the  first  of  the  states  of  the 
great  northwest  and  with  the  adoption  of  the  policy  of  internal 

^Report  in  Annals,   Seventh   Cong.,   1097. 

282  Adams,  Writings  of  Gallatin,  i,  76.     Gallatin  proposed  one-tenth   of 
the  proceeds  for  roads;  Congress  cut  this  down  to  one-twentieth. 

253  Annals,   Seventh  Cong.,   1st   Sess.,   1124. 

254  Ibid,  1124. 


90  WILLIAM  BRANCH  GILES 

improvements  by  the  national  government — a  policy  against 
which  he  devoted  the  strength  of  his  later  years. 

The  administration  party  made  a  successful  record,  in  the 
first  session  of  their  control,  in  the  passage  of  legislation.  They 
reduced  the  burden  of  taxation  by  an  abolition  of  the  excise  ;256 
they  effected  the  retrenchment  of  many  thousands  of  dollars 
by  a  reduction  of  army  and  navy;256  they  provided  a  sinking 
fund  for  the  payment  of  the  national  debt;257  they  planned  a 
military  academy;258  abolished  unnecessary  offices  and  reduced 
excessive  emoluments  even  at  the  expense  of  diminishing  volun 
tarily  executive  patronage;259  passed  new  judiciary  laws  whose 
expediency  was  to  be  proved  by  a  half  century's  success  ;260  en 
acted  a  reasonable  and  yet  sufficiently  stringent  naturalization 
law;261  placed  among  the  statutes  a  copyright  act262  and  other 
acts  of  minor  importance.263  The  Republicans  had  kept  their 
promises  to  the  people  and  had  shown  themselves  capable  of  an 
efficiency  for  which  the  party  of  Jefferson,  up  to  very  recent 
events,  has  not  had  a  conspicuous  reputation — though  they  de 
served  a  better.  In  the  enactment  of  all  these  measures,  Giles 
had  taken  part;  with  this  session  was  to  end  his  service  in  the 
House  of  Representatives. 

On  July  3,  1802,  there  appeared  in  the  Examiner,  an  adminis 
tration  paper  in  Richmond,  a  letter  of  John  W.  Eppes  to  the 
people  of  Powhatan,  Amelia,  Chesterfield,  and  Goochland,  Giles's 
district,  announcing  Eppes's  candidacy  for  the  House  of  Repre 
sentatives.  Taking  occasion  to  express  his  opinion  of  Giles's 
ability  and  position,  he  says  "the  distinguished  station  at  pres 
ent  held  by  Mr.  Giles  among  the  republicans  of  his  country,  the 
confidence  he  has  justly  acquired  by  his  exertions  for  years,  and 

255  Act,  April   6,   1802. 

258  Army  Act,  May  1,  1802.     Navy  Act,  May  1,  1802. 

257  Act  of  April  29,  1802. 

258  Act  of  March  16,  1802,  Sections  27  and  28. 

269  For  example:  Act,  April  30,  1802,  an  act  as  to  compensation  of 
collectors. 

260  Acts,  March  8,  1802,  and  April  29,  1802. 

261  Act  of  April  14,  1802. 

262  Act  of  April  29,  1802. 

868  See  for  a  similar  review,  Schouler,  ii,  22-28. 


REPUBLICAN  REFORMATION:   WAR  ON  THE  COURTS       91 

particularly  during  the  last  session  of  Congress,  render  his 
retirement  a  subject  of  regret,  not  only  to  the  republicans  of 
his  district,  but  to  the  friends  of  that  principle,  throughout  the 
United  States."  Coming  as  this  does  from  the  son-in-law  of  the 
President,  it  may  be  considered  as  a  statement  of  Jefferson's 
own  opinion.  That  Giles  was  missed  from  Congress  is  further 
confirmed  by  a  letter  of  Monroe  to  John  Taylor  dated  March  6, 
1803,  in  which  he  says:  "To  be  candid  if  I  co'd  see  you  and 
Giles  added  to  the  talents  we  already  have  in  the  H.  of  R., 
cooperating  with  the  executive  in  the  wise  system  of  policy 
which  is  adopted,  I  sho'd  think  we  were  completely  secure."2 
The  reason  for  Giles's  retirement  from  the  House  was  ill 
health:  Jefferson,  for  instance,  in  a  letter  of  February  13, 
1803,  to  Benjamin  Hawkins,  wrote,  "Mr.  Giles  is  in  a  state 
of  health  found  to  be  irrevocable,  although  he  may  hold  on 
for  some  time,  and  perhaps  be  reestablished."2  The  op 
position  organs  in  Richmond,  however,  attributed  it  to  his  and 
Jefferson's  desire  that  he  might  succeed  Monroe  as  Governor, 
and  they  kept  up  a  running  fire  of  attack  on  him  and  the  admin 
istration  during  the  years  1802  and  1803.  Two  editors  in 
Richmond  had  reason  for  hostility:  one  was  the  editor  of  the 
Virginia  Gazette  and  General  Advertiser,  Augustine  Davis,  a 
Federalist  postmaster  under  Adams  who  had  been  dismissed  by 
the  incoming  administration.  The  other  was  James  T.  Callen- 
der,  at  one  time  a  protege  of  Jefferson.  He  had  been  condemned 
under  the  Sedition  Act  to  suffer  the  penalty  of  a  fine  and 
imprisonment,  from  both  of  which  he  was  relieved  by  the 
new  President :  he  had  become  candidate  for  the  position  of 
postmaster  at  Richmond,  only  to  be  refused  by  Jefferson  be 
cause  of  obvious  unfitness.  The  venom  in  which  he  had 
dipped  his  pen  while  denouncing  John  Adams  and  the 
Federalists  he  now  used  to  poison  the  slanderous  editorials 
of  the  Recorder  against  his  former  benefactor.  For  Giles, 
Callender  had  also  peculiar  reasons  for  hatred.  That 
Giles  should  be  made  Governor,  these  men  regarded  as  "giving 
the  office  to  Jefferson  himself."  They  accused  the  President 

884  Mass.  Hist.  Soc.,  Proceedings,  vol.  42,  326. 

388  Jefferson,  Writings  (Ford),  viii,  215.    See  also  Giles  to  Madison,  Jan. 
6,  1803,  quoted  below  and  one  of  March  10,  1803,  to  Daniel  Call. 


92  WILLIAM  B.  GILES 

of  having  removed  Colonel  Wm.  Heth  from  the  office  of  Col 
lector  in  order  to  make  room  for  Mr.  Page,  Giles's  rival  for 
the  position  of  Governor.26'  At  any  rate,  Page  was  elected 
Governor  and  succeeded  Monroe  on  December  1,  1802. 

Although  doomed  to  idleness  for  a  time,  the  restless  mind 
of  the  fiery  politician  was  busy ;  he  watched  the  political  move 
ments  with  satisfaction  and  chafed  at  the  fate  which  prevented 
his  active  participation  in  national  affairs.  The  following  letter 
to  Madison  gives  a  picture  of  his  physical  and  mental  con 
dition  in  January,  1803.267 

"Amelia 

January  6th  1803 
"Dear  Sir 

"I  do  myself  the  honor  of  enclosing  to  you  a  letter  of  Colo 
Worthington  of  the  State  of  Ohio,  addressed  to  me,  my  object 
in  doing  so,  is,  that  the  President  may  be  apprised  through 
you  of  the  observations  contained  therein,  respecting  the  ap 
pointment  of  a  district  Judge  for  the  State;  to  which  I  have, 
no  doubt  he  will  pay  due  consideration.  I  regret  very  much 
that  my  state  of  health  should  incapacitate  me  for  the  dis 
charge  of  my  public  duties  in  Congress  during  the  present  ses 
sion.  I  had  always  intended  to  proceed  to  the  Federal  city 
upon  the  first  relaxation  of  my  complicated  complaints ;  But 
the  inflexible  perseverance  of  the  Rheumatic  affliction,  with 
which  I  have  been,  and  still  am  afflicted,  has  now  put  an  end 
to  every  expectation  of  that  sort.  In  other  respects,  however, 
I  think  my  health  somewhat  improved. 

"But  whilst  I  am  sustaining  in  great  pain  a  reluctant  ab 
sence  from  the  scene  of  my  public  duties;  I  cannot  help  con 
gratulating  yourself  and  the  President  upon  the  prosperous 
state  of  our  public  affairs  in  general,  resulting  from  a  wise 
and  just  administration;  and  it  is  matter  of  real  consolation 
to  me,  to  observe,  that  the  path  for  Congress  to  pursue  during 
the  present  session,  is  so  clearly  marked  out  by  the  President's 
message,  that  no  occasion  can  exist,  for  any  services  it  would 
be  in  my  power  to  render.  Amongst  the  Republicans  in  this 

^Virginia  Gazette,  July  28  and  August   18,  1802,  also  June  29,   1803. 
267  Madison  MSS.,  Lib.  Cong. 


REPUBLICAN  REFORMATION:   WAR  ON  THE  COURTS       93 

quarter ;  the  message  gives  universal  pleasure ;  and  even  the  few 
Federalists  I  have  seen,  appear  much  at  a  loss,  what  points  to 
select,  for  the  commencement  of  their  criticisms. 

"Be  pleased  to  present  my  best  wishes  and  most  affectionate 
regards  to  the  President  of  the  United  States  &  Believe  me  to 
be,  with  every  sentiment  of  the  most  sincere  affection,  Your 

friend  etc  „__.     r>    /^-i     ?> 

"Wm  B.  Giles" 

By  the  summer  of  1804,  Giles's  health  had  evidently  been 
reestablished,  at  least  to  a  marked  degree,  although  he  still 
complained  that  he  was  unwell.  A  place  for  him  in  the  United 
States  Senate  was  conveniently  made  by  the  resignation  of  his 
old  friend,  Abraham  Venable,  and  on  August  11  he  was  ap 
pointed  by  the  Governor  and  council,  United  States  Senator. 
In  December  he  was  elected  by  the  Legislature  for  the  full 
term  ending  1811.  On  November  5,  he  took  his  seat  and  without 
delay  advanced  to  the  leadership  of  the  Republican  forces  in 
that  body.268 

When  Giles  was  last  in  Congress,  his  most  conspicuous  ser 
vice  was  in  supporting  the  act  repealing  the  Judiciary  Act  of 
1801.  If  there  had  been  reason  for  Republican  attacks  on  the 
Judiciary  at  that  time,  there  was  now  in  1804  additional  reason 
for  such  hostility — the  conduct  of  John  Marshall.  Marshall's 
appointment  by  John  Adams,  when  Ellsworth  most  opportunely 
resigned,  was  a  severe  blow  to  Jefferson  and  his  party.  They 
had  themselves  looked  forward  to  Ellsworth's  death  or  retire 
ment  and  had  slated  Judge  Spencer  Roane  of  Virginia,  an  enemy 
of  Marshall,  and  a  stalwart  Republican,  for  the  office  of  Chief 
Justice.  Robbed  of  this  expected  opportunity  by  the  fore- 
handedness  of  John  Adams,  they  hoped  they  might  bring  about 
the  removal  of  the  new  Federalist  judicial  dictator  or  render 
him  harmless  by  restricting  the  powers  of  the  court.269  As  if 
to  justify  their  fears  and  to  stimulate  their  intentions,  on  Feb- 

268  Giles  says — Political  Miscellanies,  5 — he  was  elected  "without  the 
least  intimation  of  the  intention  of  the  Council  to  confer  that  honor  upon 
me."  For  letter  of  acceptance,  see  Virginia  Calendar  of  State  Papers, 
ix,  413. 

See  Am.  Hist.  Review,  xii,  776. 


289 


94  WILLIAM  BRANCH  GILES 

ruary  24,  1803,  Marshall  handed  down  the  decision  in  the  case 
of  Marbury  vs.  Madison.270  In  this  case,  despite  the  court's 
acknowledgement  of  lack  of  jurisdiction,  it  first  proceeded  to 
examine  the  legality  of  Madison's  refusal  to  transmit  to  Mar- 
bury,  one  of  the  midnight  appointees  of  John  Adams,  the  com 
mission  giving  him  authority  to  fill  the  office  of  Justice  of  the 
Peace  of  the  District  of  Columbia,  and  affirmed  that  such  a  pro 
cedure  by  the  new  administration  was  "in  violation  of  a  vested 
right."  But  the  mandamus  from  the  Supreme  Court  was,  the 
Court  held,  not  the  legal  method  of  redress,  for  that  part  of  the 
act  establishing  the  Judiciary  which  provided  that  method  was 
unconstitutional,  and  when  a  law  is  in  conflict  with  the  Constitu 
tion,  the  court,  they  claimed,  should  uphold  the  Constitution. 
If  Jefferson  and  his  supporters  had  already  chafed  at  the  Ju 
diciary's  preposterous  claims  of  authority,  what  must  be  their 
attitude  after  this  decision?  The  President  was  wrong,  the 
Secretary  of  State  was  wrong,  the  Supreme  Court  had  gone 
out  of  its  path  so  to  declare.  Federal  judges,  following  the  ex 
ample  of  state  judges  who  had  usurped  control  over  state  legis 
lation,  were  erecting  themselves  into  a  dominating  tribunal 
superior  to  the  will  of  the  people.  And  they  were  making 
occasions  to  do  it,  and  in  doing  it,  were  needlessly  giving  affront 
to  the  other  departments.  The  work  of  reform  might  now  be 
nullified  at  any  time  by  judicial  officers  not  in  harmony  with 
the  needs  of  the  people.  Here  was  a  despotic  power.  Giles  was 
right  in  his  letters  to  Jefferson  in  1801.  The  reformation  was 
incomplete  until  the  Judiciary  had  been  pruned  of  some  of  its 
presumptuousness. 

Three  weeks  before  the  decision  in  Marbury  vs.  Madison, 
February  3,  1803,  the  President  had  sent  to  the  House  com 
plaints  against  the  conduct  of  John  Pickering,  district  judge 
of  New  Hampshire,  who,  on  March  12,  1804,  although  guilty 
of  nothing  but  insanity,  had  been  voted  "guilty  as  charged," 
and  removed  from  office.  The  same  day,  decision  was  made 
by  the  House  to  impeach  Associate  Justice  Chase  of  the  Su 
preme  Bench.  When  Giles  returned  to  Congress  in  November, 

270 1  Cranch,  137. 


REPUBLICAN  REFORMATION:   WAR  ON  THE  COURTS       95 

1804,  preparations  were  in  readiness  to  proceed  with  this  great 
inquest.  In  the  first  week  of  December,271  the  House  agreed  to 
the  charges  to  be  made,  and  on  the  tenth  of  December,  the 
Senate  adopted  the  following  resolution:  "Resolved,  that  the 
Secretary  be  directed  to  issue  a  summons  to  Samuel  Chase,  one 
of  the  associate  justices  of  the  Supreme  Court  of  the  United 
States,  to  answer  certain  charges  of  impeachment  exhibited 
against  him  by  the  House  of  Representatives  on  Friday  last: 
That  the  said  summons  be  returnable  the  second  day  of  Jan 
uary,  and  be  served  fifteen  days  before  the  return  day  thereof." 
In  this  impeachment  trial,  Giles  was  naturally  interested. 
Although  Jefferson  had  abstained  from  bringing  it  forward  by 
message  as  he  had  done  that  of  Pickering,  he  did  so  by  letter 
to  Joseph  Nicholson ;  and,  although  before  this  time  John  Ran 
dolph,  manager  for  the  prosecutors,  had  shown  plain  signs  of 
an  early  break  with  the  regular  Republicans,  yet  the  trial  was 
an  administration  affair.  For  that  reason,  if  for  no  other,  Giles 
would  be  zealously  interested,  and  besides  he  had  gone  on  record 
in  very  strong  words  as  an  enemy  of  the  Judiciary.  As  John 
Randolph  considered  himself  responsible  in  the  House,  so  Giles 
looked  upon  himself  as  the  manager  in  the  Senate.  Giles  was 
chairman  of  the  committee  to  draw  up  the  rules  to  be  observed 
by  the  Senate  in  the  trial  and  during  the  time  was  in  daily 
consultation  with  John  Randolph.272  The  task  to  which  he 
particularly  devoted  himself  was  that  of  securing  the  acceptance 
of  such  a  theory  of  impeachment  as  would  leave  the  door  open 
for  the  easy  dismissal  of  Chief  Justice  Marshall,  or  any  other 
offending  justice.  In  speeches  in  the  Senate  and  in  conversa 
tions  with  the  wavering  he  elaborated  the  theory  that  impeach 
ment  was  not  a  trial ;  the  Senate  was  not  a  court ;  impeachment 
did  not  rest  on  crime  or  misdemeanors  committed  by  the  ac 
cused.  A  man  whose  opinions  were  detrimental  to  the  interests 
of  the  country  might  be  removed  by  this  process.  "Impeach 
ment  is  nothing  more,"  he  said,  "than  an  enquiry,  by  the  two 
Houses  of  Congress  whether  the  office  of  any  public  man  might 

271  December  4. 

7:2  J.  Q.  Adams,  Memoirs,  i,  318  (1804,  Nov.  29). 


96  WILLIAM  B.  GILES 

not  be  better  filled  by  another."  There  was,  according  to  him, 
no  such  thing  as  an  independent  judiciary.  "If  the  Judges 
of  the  Supreme  Court  should  dare,  AS  THEY  HAD  DONE, 
to  declare  an  act  of  Congress  unconstitutional,  or  to  send  a 
mandamus  to  the  Secretary  of  State,  AS  THEY  HAD  DONE, 
it  was  the  undoubted  right  of  the  House  of  Representatives  to 
impeach  them,  and  of  the  Senate  to  remove  them,  for  giving  such 
opinions,  however  honest  or  sincere  they  may  have  been  in  en 
tertaining  them.  Impeachment  was  not  a  criminal  prosecution, 
it  was  no  prosecution  at  all.  .  .  .  Removal  [of  a 
judge]  by  impeachment  was  nothing  more  than  a  declaration 
by  Congress  to  this  effect:  You  hold  dangerous  opinions,  and 
if  you  are  suffered  to  carry  them  into  effect  you  will  work  the 
destruction  of  the  nation.  We  want  your  offices,  for  the  pur 
pose  of  giving  them  to  men  who  will  fill  them  better."  The 
Secretary  of  the  Senate  could  not,  according  to  this  view,  ad 
minister  oaths  to  witnesses,  but  a  magistrate  would  have  to  be 
secured  for  that  purpose.  As  showing  what  was  in  mind  in  the 
effort  to  establish  this  conception  of  the  non- judicial  character 
of  an  impeachment  trial,  he  said:  "so  the  assumption  of  power 
on  the  part  of  the  Supreme  Court  in  issuing  their  process  to 
the  office  of  the  Secretary  of  State,  directing  the  executive 
how  a  law  of  the  United  States  should  be  executed,  and  the  rights 
which  the  courts  have  assumed  to  themselves  of  reviewing  and 
passing  upon  the  Acts  of  the  Legislature  in  other  cases"  were 
impeachable  offenses.273  The  influence  of  this  theory  on  the 
proceedings  is  seen,  yet  the  trial  was  conducted  according  to 
judicial  forms.  But,  although  the  theory  advanced  by  the  Vir 
ginia  statesman  is  questionable  from  the  point  of  view  of  con 
stitutional  interpretation,  yet  the  desirability  of  some  process 
of  removal  of  Federal  Judges  not  chargeable  with  crime  is 
hardly  questionable.  The  absence  of  it  leads  to  absurdities 
such  as  the  conviction  of  an  insane  man  like  Judge  Pickering, 
or  the  retention  in  office  of  some  man  who  obviously,  because  of 
unworthy  character  or  insufficient  intelligence,  is  unsuitable  for 

873  See  Speech,   December  20,   1804.     Memoirs   of  J.   Q.   Adams,  i,   321- 
335.     Adams's  U.  S.,  ii,  222. 


REPUBLICAN  REFORMATION:   WAR  ON  THE  COURTS       97 

judicial  position.  According  to  the  British  Constitution  and 
the  constitutions  of  Massachusetts  and  Pennsylvania,  at  that 
time,  judges  were  removable  by  the  executive  on  an  address  of 
both  houses  of  the  legislative  body  and  for  other  than  indictable 
offences.  In  the  United  States  at  the  present  time,  state  judges 
everywhere,  except  in  Massachusetts,  New  Hampshire,  and 
Rhode  Island,  are  appointed  for  a  term  instead  of  for  good 
behavior,  and  are  removable,  not  only  by  impeachment,  but  in 
many  cases  by  the  Governor  on  an  address  of  the  legislature.274 
And  in  three  states275  a  process  of  judicial  recall  has  been  es 
tablished.  The  tendency  of  modern  thought  is  increasingly 
toward  the  position  of  the  Jeffersonian  Republicans. 

In  addition  to  speeches  and  conversations  in  regard  to  the 
theory  to  be  pursued,  there  was  other  work  for  the  vigorous 
Virginian.  The  Vice-President  would  be  the  judge  in  the  trial 
and  unfortunately  the  present  incumbent  was  unfriendly  to  the 
prosecutors.  An  effort  was  made  to  win  his  favor.  Relatives 
of  his  wife  and  his  friend,  James  Wilkinson,  were  presented  by 
the  President  with  good  offices,  and  Giles  took  it  upon  himself 
to  circulate  a  paper  among  senators  petitioning  the  Governor 
of  New  Jersey  to  throw  out  an  indictment  against  Burr  in  the 
county  in  which  the  duel  against  Hamilton  had  taken  place. 
These  caresses  seem  to  have  accomplished  their  purpose;  for 
John  Quincy  Adams,  always  on  the  alert  for  details  of  such  a 
character,  reports  that  the  Vice-President  was  partial  to  Giles 
even  to  the  extent  of  allowing  him  once  to  speak  three  times.278 

Giles  was  no  doubt  desirous  of  the  conviction  of  Chase,  and 
had  prejudice  against  the  Judiciary;  he  did  have  extraordinary 
relations  with  John  Randolph,  manager,  but  he  did  not  allow 
these  things  to  prevent  his  judging  the  case  with  fairness.  If 
the  prosecutors  of  the  Justice  desired  success,  they  had  griev 
ously  erred  in  the  multitude  and  character  of  the  charges  which 
they  had  brought.  The  incident  which  had  inspired  the  trial 
was  the  charge  made  by  Chase  on  May  2,  1803,  to  the  grand 
jury  at  Baltimore.  Departing  from  the  dignity  of  the  judge, 

274  Baldwin,  American  Judiciary,  341. 

275  Oregon,  California,  and  Arizona. 
""Memoirs,  December  24,  1804,  325. 


98  WILLIAM  BRANCH  GILES 

though  following  the  practice  of  the  day,  he  had  taken  oc 
casion,  before  the  jury  had  retired,  to  deliver  to  them  a  politi 
cal  harangue,  replete  with  reflections  on  the  administration. 
After  picturing  the  free  condition  of  the  people  "where  justice 
is  impartially  and  speedily  administered,"  he  had  proceeded  to 
say:  "where  law  is  uncertain,  partial,  or  arbitrary;  where  jus 
tice  is  not  impartially  administered  to  all;  where  property  is 
insecure,  and  the  person  is  liable  to  insult  and  violence  with 
out  redress  by  law,  the  people  are  not  free,  whatever  may  be 
their  form  of  government.  To  this  situation,  I  greatly  fear, 
we  are  fast  approaching.  You  know,  gentlemen,  that  our  state 
and  national  institutions  were  framed  to  secure  to  every  mem 
ber  of  the  society  equal  liberty  and  equal  rights;  but  the  late 
alteration  of  the  Federal  judiciary  by  the  abolition  of  the 
office  of  the  sixteen  circuit  judges,  and  the  recent  change  in  the 
state  constitution  by  the  establishing  of  universal  suffrage, 
and  the  further  alteration  that  is  contemplated  in  our  state 
judiciary  (if  adopted)  will,  in  my  judgment  take  away  all 
security  for  property  and  personal  liberty.  The  independence 
of  the  national  judiciary  is  already  shaken  to  its  foundation, 
and  the  virtue  of  the  people  can  alone  restore  it."2  That  a 
Justice  of  the  Supreme  Court  of  the  United  States  should  so 
far  forget  himself  or  misuse  his  opportunities,  as  to  denounce 
from  his  high  seat  the  action  of  the  other  two  coordinate 
branches  of  the  Federal  Government,  the  action  of  the  people  of 
the  state  of  Maryland  in  changing  their  constitution,  and  also 
use  his  influence  against  an  alteration  then  under  consideration 
in  that  state,  was  reprehensible  to  a  marked  degree,  and  was  evi 
dence  of  unfitness  for  the  high  dignity  which  he  held.  But,  not 
content  with  resting  their  case  on  this  incident,  the  House  mana 
gers  went  back  to  1800  to  the  trials  of  John  Fries  and  James 
Thompson  Callender,  now  an  old  story,  and,  besides,  dragged 
in  certain  alleged  errors  in  rulings  made  from  the  bench. 

In  the  conduct  of  the  trial  there  was  inconsistency  and  con 
tradiction  among  the  managers  as  to  the  theory  of  impeach- 

277  Annals,   Eighth   Cong.,   2nd   Sess.,   674.    Trial   of  Judge   Chase,   ex 
hibit  eight. 


REPUBLICAN  REFORMATION  :  WAR  ON  THE  COURTS        99 

ment,  and  John  Randolph,  the  chief  manager,  unprepared  and 
nervous,  could  hardly  continue  his  final  argument  to  its  legiti 
mate  conclusion.278  When,  on  the  twenty-eighth  of  February, 
the  form  of  the  question  to  be  put  was  under  discussion,  Giles, 
still  upholding  his  theory  of  impeachment  as  described  above, 
yet  on  the  ground  that  the  actual  offenses  charged  in  this 
present  case  were  high  crimes  and  misdemeanors,  agreed  that 
the  question  should  read  "Is  Samuel  Chase  guilty  or  not  guilty 
of  a  high  crime  or  misdemeanor,  as  charged  in  the  article"  just 
read?  When  the  vote  was  taken  he,  with  the  majority  of 
Senators,  voted  against  the  prosecution  in  four  items  out  of 
the  eight.  Wherever  he  voted  for  conviction,  except  in  the 
case  of  the  second  article,  he  voted  with  the  majority.  One  of 
the  charges,  the  eighth  article,  which  had  reference  to  the 
speech  before  the  grand  jury  at  Baltimore,  might  have  been 
sustained  by  the  necessary  two-thirds  majority,  had  the  mana 
gers  rested  their  case  exclusively  on  it  and  left  out  charges 
whose  only  effect  was  to  irritate,  to  weaken,  and  to  alarm  as 
to  the  consequences  of  a  favorable  vote.  When  the  question  of 
payment  for  the  witnesses  arose,  Giles  refused  to  consent  to  a 
distinction  between  those  for  the  prosecution  and  those  for  the 
defence,  insisting  on  payment  for  both  by  the  United  States, 
and  won  from  Adams  the  praise  of  being  "firm  and  correct."2 

The  only  other  act  of  this  session  in  which  Giles  seems  to  have 
been  much  concerned  was  an  act  further  providing  for  the 
government  of  Orleans.  This  act  he  presented  and  carried 
through  the  Senate.  It  became  a  law  March  2,  1805.  By 
an  act  passed  during  the  preceding  session,280  the  southern 
part  of  the  Louisiana  Territory  became  the  territory  of 
Orleans,  under  a  government  similar  to  that  provided  in  the 
ordinance  of  1787,  as  the  first  territorial  stage  for  the  north 
west.  Fifty  thousand  people,  however,  lived  in  Orleans,  where 
as  the  Northwest  Territory  in  1787  was  almost  destitute  of 
inhabitants.  Their  governor  and  council  were  appointed  by 

378  See  Trial  of  Chase. 

mJ.  Q.  A.  Memoirs,  i,  372.     Also  interesting  letters  in  Adams  Tran 
scripts,  vol.  ii. 
380  U.  S.  Stat.  at  Large,  ii,  283. 


100  WILLIAM  B.  GILES 

the  President.  These  made  the  laws.  The  Supreme  Court 
was  also  composed  of  Presidential  appointees.  On  the  thirty- 
first  of  December,  1804,  Giles  had  presented  a  petition  from 
"planters,  merchants  and  other  inhabitants  of  Louisiana,"  re 
monstrating  against  certain  laws  which  controverted  their 
rights.  Stating  their  grievances  in  stirring  language,  claim 
ing  that  they  were  not  "incorporated  into  the  United  States," 
as  was  promised  in  the  treaty  that  they  should  be,  they  prayed 
that  "so  much  of  the  law  above  mentioned,  as  provides  for  the 
temporary  government  of  this  country,  as  divides  it  into  two 
territories,  and  prohibits  the  importation  of  slaves,  be  repealed. 
And  that  prompt  and  efficacious  measures  be  taken  to  incor 
porate  the  inhabitants  of  Louisiana  into  the  Union  of  the 
United  States,  and  admit  them  to  all  the  rights,  privileges,  and 
immunities  of  the  citizens  thereof."2  The  act  of  March  2, 
1805,  conceded  to  the  inhabitants  of  the  territory  of  Orleans, 
the  privilege  of  electing  at  once  a  General  Assembly  to  make 
their  laws.  When  the  population  should  amount  to  60,000, 
they  should  be  authorized  to  form  a  constitution  and  to  claim 
admission  into  the  Union. 

281  For  the  "Remonstrance"  see  Annals,  Eighth  Cong.,  2nd  Sess.,  1597. 


CHAPTER  VII 
MONROE'S  TREATY  AND  THE  BURR  TRIAL 

The  Eighth  Congress  ended  March  3,  1805.  But  Giles  was 
not  able  to  return  to  the  Senate  until  December,  1806.  In  ad 
dition  to  the  renewed  suffering  from  his  rheumatic  disease,  on 
his  way  to  Washington,  late  in  1805  or  early  in  1806,  he  was 
thrown  from  a  carriage.  His  leg  was  fractured  and  knee  in 
jured  "to  an  extreme  degree,"  so  much  so  that  he  was  "reduced 
to  the  use  of  crutches"  and  was  "scarcely  able  to  hobble  in  a 
miserable  manner  without  them."2  2  He  regretted  being  deprived 
of  his  "share  of  responsibility  in  the  measures  to  be  adopted 
by  the  Government  in  the  present  delicate  crisis  of  our  public 
affairs."2  To  this  his  distinguished  friend  replied  "we  learnt 
here  with  real  affliction  the  terrible  calamity  which  happened 
to  you.  To  our  feelings  for  your  personal  sufferings  were 
added  those  for  the  public  want  of  you  here.  For  the  impor 
tance  of  the  matters  before  Congress,  &  some  unfortunate 
circumstances,  your  presence  here  would  have  been,  &  would 
still  be  of  incalculable  value  to  the  nation."284  And  again  he 
said  to  others  that  Giles's  absence  had  been  "a  most  serious 
misfortune."2  But,  in  the  interval,  there  was  service  which  the 
cripple  could  render.  John  Randolph,  who  as  early  as  De 
cember,  1800,  had  begun  to  talk  of  Republican  Monocrats,  and 
a  few  months  after  the  inauguration  of  Jefferson,  expressed  his 
disappointment  at  practical  results,286  had  now  for  two  years 
given  signs  of  a  break  with  the  administration.  Angered 
against  Madison  because  of  his  connection  with  the  Yazoo 
claims,  disgusted  at  the  departure  of  the  Republicans  from  their 
pure  principles  of  1798,  mortified  by  the  ignominious  breakdown 
of  the  Chase  trial  and  at  Giles's  action  in  the  payment  of  wit- 

282  Letter   to    Monroe,   March    4,    1807— Monroe   MSS.,   Lib.    of   Cong. 

283  Jefferson  MSS.,  Lib.  of  Cong. 

284  Jefferson   to   Giles,   Feb.   23,    1806,   Jefferson   MSS.,   Lib.    of   Cong. 
^Writings  (Ford)  VIII,  435. 

286  Correspondence  with  Joseph  Nicholson,  Adams  Transcripts. 


102,',  tc  ;  WILWAM  BRANCH  GILES 

nesses,  he  had  on  March  5,  1806,287  delivered  a  bitter  criticism 
of  the  executive  and  the  cabinet.  He  soon  declared  himself  no 
longer  a  Republican  but  a  member  of  a  third  party  of  quids.288 
He  followed  a  policy  of  denunciation  and  obstruction  until  he 
had  disgusted  his  supporters  and  thrown  the  administration 
"into  the  hands  of  the  northern  democrats."2  Giles  had  been 
as  we  have  seen,  on  very  friendly  terms  with  the  eccentric  leader ; 
but,  although  himself  unsympathetic  with  the  views  of  the  ad 
ministration  as  to  the  Yazoo  claims,290  yet  he  felt  that  an  attack 
on  the  administration  was  an  attack  on  him  and  he  was  ready 
to  be  of  service  to  remoA^e  Randolph  from  a  position  in  which 
he  was  an  embarrassment.  Hunting  around,  he  found  an  old 
enemy  of  his  own  in  Randolph's  district,  Creed  Taylor,  and 
proposed  him  for  Congress.  And,  in  order  to  defeat  his  former 
friend,  he  exhibited  a  confidential  letter  received  from  Ran 
dolph.291  But  the  disaffected  statesman  of  Roanoke  continued 
to  stand  in  the  graces  of  his  constituents,  who  returned  him  to 
Congress  regularly  until  1813.  To  that  body  Giles  himself 
came  back  in  December,  1806. 

The  Second  Session  of  the  Ninth  Congress  was,  according  to 
Giles,  "the  most  harmonious  session  in  the  Senate,  that  has 
taken  place  since  the  commencement  of  the  government."  Party 
was  nearly,  according  to  him,  at  an  end  in  that  body ;  and  sub- 
jects  were  generally  discussed  and  considered  merely  in  relation 
to  their  intrinsic  merits  unaccompained  by  any  collateral  sensi 
bilities — the  House  of  Representatives,  was  occasionally  agi 
tated  by  variable  squalls  and  whirlwinds,  defying  all  system  and 
consistency.  This  was  attributed,  however,  "more  to  the  capri 
cious  sensibilities  of  a  few  individuals,  than  to  the  designs  or 
views  of  the  general  mass."2  A  consultation  of  the  Annals  for 

^Annals,  Ninth  Cong.,  1st  Sess.,  561,  572.  Adams's  Randolph,  174- 
178. 

288  Adams's  Randolph,  181. 

289  Ibid,  184-189. 

280  In  a  letter  to  Randolph,  Feb.,  1806.  (Substance  given  in  statement 
of  Leigh  mentioned  below). 

291  Letter  of  John  Randolph  to  Nicholson,  Adams's  Randolph,  198.     Also 
Memorandum  of  Benjamin  Watkins  I^eigh  in  Library  of  Virginia   Hist. 
Society. 

292  Letter  of  Giles  to  Monroe,  March  4,   1807. 


MONROE'S  TREATY  AND  THE  BURR  TRIAL  103 

the  session  bears  out  this  statement,  certainly  as  far  as  the 
Senate  is  concerned.  In  regard  to  the  character  of  the  debates, 
it  is  impossible  to  be  certain  in  the  absence  of  full  reports  of 
the  speeches  delivered,  but  measures  desired  by  the  administra 
tion  were  usually  carried  through  without  the  necessity  of  a 
division.  The  President's  message  regretted  delays  in  securing 
satisfaction  in  our  negotiations  with  Great  Britain  and  Spain, 
mentioned  in  general  terms  the  operations  of  Burr,  and  sug 
gested  measures  for  the  prevention  of  enterprises  prepared  by 
our  citizens  against  the  United  States,  reported  satisfactory 
conditions  among  the  Indians,  commended  the  expeditions  of 
Lewis,  Clark,  and  Pike,  and  offered  congratulations  "on  the  ap 
proach  of  the  period  at  which  you  may  interpose  your  author 
ity  constitutionally  to  withdraw  the  citizens  of  the  United 
States  from  all  further  participation  in  those  violations  of 
human  rights  which  have  been  so  long  continued  on  the  un 
offending  inhabitants  of  Africa,"  suggested  a  suppression  of 
the  duties  on  salt,  and  recommended  a  continuation  of  the 
Mediterranean  fund,  and  an  extensive  system  of  internal  im 
provements  and  national  education  as  being  proper  objects — 
provided  that  a  constitutional  amendment  authorizing  them 
should  be  adopted — for  the  expenditures  of  the  surplus  in  the 
Treasury.295  The  day  after  the  reception  of  this  message,  a 
temporary  suspension  of  the  act  of  last  session  prohibiting  cer 
tain  importations  was  recommended  "on  consideration  of  jus 
tice,  amity,  and  the  public  interests."2  The  particular  items 
of  the  message  were  referred,  as  usual,  to  the  select  committees. 
Giles  was  appointed  on  the  committees  on  fortifications,  non 
importation  of  slaves,  and  was  made  chairman  of  the  committee 
as  to  laws  respecting  insurrections,  on  the  suspension  of  the 
non-importation  act,  and  on  the  repeal  of  the  duty  on  salt. 
The  first  of  these  recommendations  to  become  law  was  that  de 
siring  the  suspension  of  the  non-importation  bill.  An  effort 
was  made  in  the  House  to  extend  the  suspension  to  December  21, 
1807.  This  failed,  and  the  bill  as  it  came  from  the  House 

293  Richardson,  Messages  and  Papers,  i,  405. 
^Ibid,  411. 


104  WILLIAM  B.  GILES 

suspended  the  act  to  July  1.  By  a  Senate  amendment,  the  Pres 
ident  was,  in  addition,  given  authority  to  suspend  it  to  the 
second  Monday  in  December  of  the  next  year.29£  The  duty  on 
salt  was  repealed  and  the  Mediterranean  fund  continued  as  the 
President  had  requested.29(  The  President's  recommendations 
for  the  passage  of  an  act  forbidding  the  importation  of  slaves 
provoked  such  an  interesting  debate  in  the  House  and  was 
a  subject  in  which  Giles  was  so  much  interested  in  later  years 
that  it  is  much  to  be  regretted  that  his  speeches  in  the  Senate 
on  this  subject  are  not  preserved.  It  was  the  Senate  bill,  how 
ever,  which  became  a  law,  and  at  least  part  of  that  bill  was 
written  by  Giles. 

The  discussion  ranged  around  three  important  points  in 
the  House  and  presumably  there  was  interesting  debate  on  these 
same  questions  in  the  Senate.  What  should  be  done  with  the 
negroes  seized  from  violators  of  the  law?  Some  southerners, 
like  Early  of  Georgia,  who  reported  the  House  bill,  wished  them 
forfeited  to  the  Government  and  sold  by  it.  Others  wished 
them  freed.  The  decision  of  the  matter  was  to  leave  the  negroes 
to  the  disposition  of  the  states  wherein  they  were  captured. 
For  this  provision  Giles  claimed  to  be  responsible,  and  of  it  he 
was  very  proud.  For  all  time,  he  later  asserted,  this  provision 
had  placed  the  control  of  slavery  in  the  hands  of  the  legisla 
tures  of  the  states  and  territories.  Not  uninteresting  is  it 
to  find  him  rejoicing  that  the  legislatures  of  the  territories  of 
the  United  States  had  absolute  control  of  this  purely  domestic 
institution.297  Surely  he  saw  but  dimly  into  the  future — in 
1858  would  he  not  have  held  with  Jefferson  Davis  as  against 
Stephen  A.  Douglas,  and  with  the  Dred  Scott  decision  as 
against  the  Republican  platform? 

The  severity  of  the  penalty  to  be  imposed  for  violation  of  the 
act  was  another  question  at  issue.  The  House  was  successful 
in  the  substitution  of  fines  and  imprisonment  for  the  death 
penalty  as  proposed  by  the  Senate.  John  Randolph  argued 
against  fines  and  imprisonment  "on  the  ground  that  such  an 

^Annals,  December  12  (Senate),  Act  of  December  19. 

290  Act  approved  March  3. 

297  Proceedings  and  Debates  of  Virginia  Convention,  1829-1830,  246. 


MONROE'S  TREATY  AND  THE  BURR  TRIAL  105 

excessive  penalty  could  not,  in  such  cases,  be  constitutionally 
imposed  by  a  government  possessed  of  the  limited  power  of  the 
Government  of  the  United  States.298  The  third  point  of  dis 
pute  was  the  manner  in  whicli  interstate  coastwise  trade  should 
be  prohibited.  The  Senate  proposed  its  entire  prohibition. 
After  disagreement  of  the  two  Houses,  the  conference  com 
mittee  devised  a  compromise  prohibiting  the  coastwise  trans 
portation  of  slaves,  with  a  view  to  sales,  in  vessels  under  forty 
tons  burden.295  Even  this  compromise  brought  forth  the  dra 
matic  efforts  of  John  Randolph,  and  his  tragic  declarations 
that  he  had  "rather  lose  the  bill,  he  had  rather  lose  all  the  bills 
of  the  session,  he  had  rather  lose  every  bill  passed  since  the  es 
tablishment  of  the  Government,  than  agree  to  the  provision300 
contained  in  this  slave  bill.  It  went  to  blow  up  the  Constitu 
tion  in  ruins."3  The  House,  however,  accepted  the  provision 
and  passed  the  law.  Only  five  men  voted  against  it — two  of 
them  were  from  Virginia.302  If  John  Randolph,  in  the  quota 
tions  given  from  him  in  the  preceding  paragraph,  was  radical 
and  violent,  yet  his  expressions  carried  with  them  a  significance. 
There  were  those  who  did  not  wish  the  slave  trade  abolished; 
indeed,  there  was  a  modicum  of  truth  in  the  assertion  of 
Early,303  even  at  that  time,  that  "a  large  majority  of  the  people 
in  the  southern  states  do  not  consider  slavery  as  even  an  evil." 
Had  the  law  provided  for  freeing  the  slaves  illegally  imported, 
as  moderate  a  man  as  Macon  was  ready  to  declare  it  could 
not  be  executed.30'  In  due  time,  however,  the  states  passed  laws 
for  the  enforcement  of  the  act.  Virginia  had  already  directed 
slaves  imported  within  her  boundaries  to  be  delivered  to  the 
overseers  of  the  poor  and  sold  for  cash,  and  had  imposed  a 

398  Annals,   Ninth  Cong.,  2nd   Sess.,   484. 

899  Annals,  626.  Schouler,  ii,  144.  Dubois,  Suppression  of  the  Slave 
Trade,  102.  Act  approved  March  3,  1807. 

800  The  coastwise  provision. 

801  Annals,  626. 

^Garnett  and  Trigg.  The  others  were  from  South  Carolina,  Vermont, 
and  New  Hampshire.  The  opposition  of  each  was,  however,  due  to  ques 
tions  of  detail. 

808  Annals,  238. 

•"Annals,   173-174. 


106  WILLIAM  BRANCH  GILES 

penalty  of  $400  for  each  slave  brought  in.305  But  the  famous 
act  of  1807,  passed  as  I  have  just  described  by  the  Congress  of 
the  United  States,  was  very  ineffectively  enforced.80* 

An  act  was  passed  at  this  session  authorizing  the  President 
"in  all  cases  of  insurrection,  or  obstruction  to  the  laws,"  where 
it  is  lawful  to  call  out  the  militia  to  suppress  insurrections,  to 
employ  "such  part  of  the  land  or  naval  force  of  the  United 
States,  as  shall  be  judged  necessary."307  In  the  meantime,  in 
accordance  with  a  resolution  of  the  House  of  Representatives, 
the  President  sent  to  the  two  Houses  on  January  22,  a  full 
statement  of  the  history  of  the  Burr  conspiracy,  as  he  under 
stood  it  to  be,  and  of  his  own  conduct  in  the  premises.  From 
the  information  received,  it  appeared  to  the  President  that  Burr 
had  two  objects  "which  might  be  carried  on  jointly  or  separ 
ately;"  one  was  "the  severance  of  the  union  of  these  states  by 
the  Allegheny  Mountains;  the  other  an  attack  on  Mexico." 
Having  narrated  the  history  of  events  as  he  knew  them,  he  add 
ed  that  one  of  Burr's  emissaries  had  been  liberated  by  habeas 
corpus  and  that  two  others  were  on  their  way  east  and  would 
be  handed  over  to  the  courts  for  action.  That  the  Supreme 
Court  Judges  would  be  in  Washington  in  a  few  days,  was  a  fact 
worthy  of  mention  in  this  connection.30* 

On  the  following  day  this  message,  on  motion  of  Giles,  was 
referred  to  a  committee  composed  of  himself,  John  Quincy 
Adams,  and  Samuel  Smith,  with  a  view  of  inquiring  into  the 
expediency  of  suspending  the  privilege  of  the  writ  of  habeas 
corpus.301  Before  adjournment  for  the  day,  a  bill  was  pre 
sented  by  this  committee  to  the  Senate,  rushed  through  under 
suspended  rules,  and  sent  over  to  the  House.  The  bill  pro 
vided  that  "in  all  cases,  where  any  person  or  persons,  charged 
on  oath  with  treason,  misprision  of  treason,  or  other  high  crimes 
or  misdemeanor,  endangering  the  peace,  safety,  or  neutrality 

805  Act  passed  January  25,  1806.     Statutes  at  Large  of  Virginia    (new 
series),  iii,  251.    A  milder  act  had  been  passed  in  1792. 
^Dubois,  Suppression  of  the  Slave  Trade,  160,  et  seq. 

807  Act  approved  March  3,   1807. 

808  Richardson,  Messages  and  Papers,  i,  412    (January  22,  1807), 

809  Annals,  Ninth  Cong.,  2nd  Sess.,  44. 


MONROE'S  TREATY  AND  THE  BURR  TRIAL  107 

of  the  United  States,  have  been  or  shall  be  arrested  or  im 
prisoned  .  .  .  the  privilege  of  the  writ  of  habeas 
corpus  shall  be,  and  the  same  hereby  is  suspended,  for 
and  during  the  term  of  three  months  from  and  after  the  passage 
of  this  act,  and  no  longer."310  Without  the  formality  of  passing 
through  the  ordinary  forms  of  procedure,  the  bill  was  rejected 
on  its  first  reading  in  the  House  on  the  very  day  of  its  reception, 
January  26,  on  the  grounds  that  the  emergency  contemplated 
in  the  Constitution,  a  danger  to  public  safety,  did  not  exist,  and 
further,  that  it  was,  so  far  as  it  related  to  persons  arrested, 
really  an  ex  post  -facto  law.  The  vote  against  it  was  113  to  19, 
one  of  its  strongest  opponents  being  John  W.  Eppes,  the 
President's  son-in-law.311 

A  few  days  after  this,  the  Supreme  Court,  on  whom  the 
President  in  his  message  had  expressed  his  reliance,  released 
on  a  writ  of  habeas  corpus,  Swartwout  and  Bollman,  emissaries 
of  Burr.  So  angry  was  Giles  that  he  threatened  to  bring 
forward  a  motion  taking  away  all  jurisdiction  of  the  Supreme 
Court  in  criminal  cases.312 

But,  before  the  question  of  Burr  became  a  matter  of  history 
and  before  the  adjournment  of  Congress,  the  President  had 
received  from  Monroe,  minister  to  England,  and  William  Pink- 
ney,  special  envoy  sent  during  the  spring  to  aid  Monroe,  a 
treaty  which  these  gentlemen  had  finally  secured  from  Great 
Britain.  Instructed  to  negotiate  an  instrument  which  should 
bind  the  British  to  abandon  the  impressment  of  American  sea 
men,  which  they  had  continued  to  do  of  late,  to  restore  the 
West  Indian  trade  to  the  position  which  it  occupied  when  Jef 
ferson  became  President,  and  to  secure  indemnities  for  the  cap 
tures  made  under  an  admiralty  decision  in  1805,313  Monroe  and 
Pinkney,  after  futile  negotiations,  had  agreed  to  a  treaty 
which  all  but  ignored  the  instructions  on  the  first  two  points. 

310  Annals,  Ninth  Cong.,  2nd  Sess.,  402. 

811  Ibid,  403. 

103  Adams,  Memoirs,  i,  459. 

313  The  latter  was  not  named  as  absolutely  indispensable  but  refusal  of 
Great  Britain  to  yield  would  be  "a  painful  impediment  in  the  negotia 
tions."  Am.  St.  Papers,  For.,  iii,  122. 


108  WILLIAM  B.  GILES 

The  West  Indian  trade  was,  however,  allowed  under  certain 
conditions.  But  after  the  treaty  was  agreed  to,  but  before 
it  was  signed,  a  note  was  presented  to  them  by  the  British 
negotiators  stating  that  promise  of  resistance  to  Napoleon's 
Berlin  decree  by  our  government  would  be  a  necessary  condi 
tion  to  the  English  ratification.314  The  treaty  was  received  by 
the  President  on  March  3.  How  it  was  received  by  him  and 
regarded  by  the  Virginia  Senator  is  told  in  a  letter  to  Monroe 
by  the  latter  dated  the  following  day :  "The  President  of  the 
United  States  was  last  evening  furnished  with  a  copy  of  the 
treaty  lately  concluded  between  the  commissioners  of  U.  S.  and 
G.  Britain,  together  with  the  declaratory  or  explanatory 
note  on  the  part  of  the  British  Commissioners.  The  contents 
I  have  not  seen;  but  the  substance  has  been  informally  com 
municated  by  the  President  without  reserve;  and  it  would  give 
me  great  pleasure,  to  have  it  in  my  power  to  assure  you  that 
they  were  acceptable  to  the  government  and  people  of  this 
country.  But  this  is  not  the  fact.  The  obvious  tendency  of 
the  explanatory  note,  and  the  silence  respecting  seamen,  have 
excited  universal  disappointment  and  astonishment.  The  High 
and  unabated  confidence  in  our  commissioners,  forbids  any  con 
clusive  opinion  on  this  subject,  until  their  own  inducements  for 
consenting  to  such  a  measure  shall  be  known;  But  without  this 
information,  I  can  assure  you,  that  the  views  and  opinions  re 
specting  our  foreign  relations,  are  extremely  different  from 
those  which  must  have  influenced  our  commissioners.  The  only 
party  here  in  favor  of  making  a  common  cause  with  G. 
B.  or  taking  any  part  whatever  in  the  war,  until  absolute 
ly  forced  to  it ;  is  the  mere  Anglican  party,  accompained 
by  a  few  wildly  eccentric  men,  who  have  no  influence  whatever, 
and  are  considered  generally  as  men  of  disordered  imaginations. 
They  are  totally  destitute  of  influence,  and  destroy  every  per 
son  or  object  they  endeavor  to  support.  It  is  feared  that  some 
of  the  wild  effusions  of  some  of  these  men,  have  been  mistaken 
by  our  commissioners  for  indications  of  the  public  sentiment." 

114  Am.  St.  Papers,  For.,  iii,  152. 


MONROE'S  TREATY  AND  THE  BURR  TRIAL  109 

Although  Congress  was  still  in  session  when  the  treaty  was 
received,  the  President,  instead  of  submitting  it  to  that  body, 
returned  it  to  the  American  commissioners. 31C  "Take  out  the 
eleventh  article,"  wrote  the  President,  "and  the  evil  of  all  the 
others  so  much  overweighs  the  good,  th&t  we  should  be  glad  to 
expunge  the  whole."  Monroe  might  come  home,  receive  the 
governorship  of  Orleans,  "the  second  office  in  the  United  States 
in  importance,"  and,  unless  the  treaty  could  "be  put  into  accep 
table  form,"  the  negotiation  should  be  allowed  "to  die  away 
insensibly."*16 

In  the  meantime  the  scene  of  interest  had  shifted  from  the 
capital  of  the  United  States  to  the  capital  of  Virginia.  During 
the  month  of  March,  Burr  arrived  in  Richmond  ready  to  stand 
trial.  Entertained  at  dinner  with  the  chief  justice  who  was  to 
preside  at  the  trial,  lionized  by  Federalists,  so  commodiously 
imprisoned  that  he  could  offer  his  daughter  a  parlor  and  bed 
room  with  three  large  closets,  the  recipient  of  messages,  and 
delicacies,  and  visits  by  "friends  and  acquaintances  of  both 
sexes,"  the  former  vice-president  appeared  to  be  rather  the  hero 
of  patriotic  exploits  than  the  prisoner  charged  with  treason 
against  the  United  States.  When  the  grand  jury  was  sum 
moned,  the  names  of  W.  C.  Nicholas  and  William  B.  Giles 
were  found  on  the  list.  To  them,  naturally,  Burr  objected, 
to  Nicholas  as  having  entertained  a  bitter  personal  animosity 
against  the  prisoner,  and  to  Giles  as  having  been  the  author  of 
the  bill  for  the  suspension  of  the  writ  of  habeas  corpus  and 
having  on  other  occasions  expressed  his  opinion.  Disclaiming 
any  resentment  against  Burr  and  protesting  he  could  receive 
without  prejudice  judicial  evidence,  Giles  expressed  a  willing 
ness  to  withdraw,  and,  on  the  advice  of  the  Chief  Justice,  did 
so.317  Giles's  interest  in  the  case,  however,  is  clearly  seen  from 
the  following  letter  written  to  Jefferson  about  ten  days  after  the 

815  Jefferson  was  sharply  criticized  by   some  regular  Republicans — e.   g. 
General  Samuel   Smith,  who  wanted  to   go  to   London  himself  as  envoy 
extraordinary,  complained   that  the   President  had   acted  with  insufficient 
delicacy.     Smith   to  W.   C.    Nicholas,   April   1,   1806   and   March  4,   1807. 
Nicholas  MSS.    (Transcripts  by  Henry  Adams). 

816  Randall,  iii,  201. 

07  Proceedings  of  the  Trial,  15  and  16. 


110  WILLIAM  BRANCH  GILES 

examination  of  Burr  by  Judge  Marshall  preliminary  to  his 
admission  to  bail. 

"The  late  enquiry  into  the  charges  vs  Colo  Burr,  has 
excited  a  very  great  degree  of  sensibility  in  this  part  of  the 
country  and  probably  will  have  the  same  effect  in  all  parts  of 
the  United  States.  The  real  friends  of  the  administration  are 
universally  anxious  for  a  full  and  fair  judicial  investigation 
into  his  conduct,  and  rely  with  great  confidence  upon  the  execu 
tive  for  taking  all  measures  necessary  for  effecting  that  ob 
ject.  The  new,  as  well  as  the  old  opposers  of  the  administra 
tion,  are  anxious  to  smother  the  investigation,  and  have  al 
ready  suggested  doubts  respecting  the  measures  heretofore  pur 
sued  in  relation  to  Burr ;  and  intimate  that  the  executive  are 
not  possessed  of  evidence  to  justify  those  measures,  or  if  they 
are,  that  they  have  been  extremely  delinquent  in  not  producing 
it  at  the  examination.  It  is  even  said  that  General  Wilkinson 
will  not  be  ordered  to  attend  the  trial.  I  hope  and  trust  that 
this  is  not  the  fact;  because  I  am  confident  that  such  an  omis 
sion  would  implicate  the  character  of  the  administration,  more 
than  they  can  be  apprised  of.  Indeed,  I  do  not  see  under  such 
circumstances;  upon  what  ground  the  administration  could  be 
justified  by  its  real  friends.  The  necessity  of  Wilkinson's 
presence  with  the  army  would  not  be  received  as  an  apology 
by  any  party  in  this  part  of  the  country.  Besides,  I  think 
Wilkinson's  own  character  will  be  seriously  affected  by  his 
absence;  and  of  course  it  would  be  unjust  to  him.  Probably, 
too,  measures  contemplated  in  relation  to  his  late  military 
proceedings  would  receive  considerable  impression  from  that 
circumstance.  These  considerations,  I  am  confident  cannot 
receive  too  much  of  your  attention." 

Into  the  story  of  this  trial  it  is  not  necessary  for  my  pur 
poses  to  enter.  The  appointment  of  John  Randolph,  bitter 
enemy  of  the  administration,  as  foreman  of  the  grand  jury, 
the  extraordinary  conduct  of  the  presiding  justice  in  issuing 
a  subpoena  duces  tecum  requiring  the  President  to  appear  with 
certain  documents  and  letters,  the  attacks  of  the  defendant's 
attorney  on  the  administration,  Jefferson's  eagerness  for  the 


MONROE'S  TREATY  AND  THE  BURR  TRIAL  111 

conviction  of  Burr,  the  final  discharge  of  the  accused — all  these 
constitute  a  drama  of  judicial  and  semipolitical  contest  seldom 
equalled  in  America.  One  result  of  the  proceeding  was  a  further 
estrangement  of  the  Supreme  Court  and  the  Executive  and  the 
increased  desire  on  the  part  of  the  leading  Republicans  to  strike 
down  this  overweening  and  dangerous  usurpation  of  the 
judiciary. 


CHAPTER  VIII 

THE  CHESAPEAKE  OUTRAGE  AND  THE 
TREASON  BILL 

While  the  Burr  trial  was  going  on,  an  event  of  much  im 
portance  took  place,  destined  to  have  a  bearing  on  our  very 
delicate  relations  with  England.  On  June  22,  our  ship  Chesa 
peake,  on  her  way  to  the  Mediterranean,  left  Hampton  Roads. 
Out  from  Lynnhaven  Bay,  where  it  had  been  lying,  came  the 
British  ship,  Leopard,  and,  approaching  the  American  vessel, 
hailed  for  the  purpose  of  delivering  dispatches  to  Commodore 
Barren  on  board  the  Chesapeake.  The  dispatches  were  nothing 
less  than  an  order  from  Vice- Admiral  Berkeley  at  Halifax  di 
recting  the  captains  and  commanders  of  his  majesty's  ships  and 
vessels  "in  case  of  meeting  the  American  frigate  'Chesapeake' 
at  sea"  to  search  it  for  deserters  reported  to  be  on  board.  Re 
ceiving  no  satisfaction  from  Barren,  the  commander  of  the 
Leopard  opened  fire,  killing  three  men  and  wounding  eight. 
Four  men  were  taken  from  the  ship,  three  of  them  were  com 
pelled  to  reenter  British  service  and  the  other  was  executed. 
Among  all  the  injuries  suffered  by  American  honor  during  the 
whole  shameful  period  of  English  and  French  depredations, 
none  equalled  this  in  shamefulness,  in  none  had  the  British 
shown  such  effrontery.  Not  an  ordinary  merchantman  on  the 
high  seas  but  an  American  man  of  war  in  sight  of  our  shore 
was  compelled  to  submit  to  the  will  of  a  British  crew.  Intense 
feeling  immediately  flared  up.  The  cities  of  Norfolk  and  Ports 
mouth  passed  resolutions  discontinuing  relations  with  the  British 
ships,  providing  for  the  appointment  of  a  committee  of  cor 
respondence,  for  the  subscription  of  a  fund  for  the  wounded 
and  for  the  families  of  the  killed,  pledging  their  lives  and  prop 
erty  to  the  government  in  measures  of  vengeance  and  retalia 
tion.818  The  Governor  of  Virginia,  W.  H.  Cabell,  ordered  out 

818  Enquirer,  June  27. 


CHESAPEAKE  OUTRAGE  AND  TREASON  BILL  113 

the  militia.319  Meetings  were  held  in  many  places320  and  reso 
lutions  adopted  denouncing  the  outrage  and  expressing  con 
fidence  in  the  executive.  At  one  of  these  meetings  held  July  11, 
at  Amelia  Court  House,  Giles  presided  and  the  following  reso 
lutions  were  adopted  :321  "Resolved,  unanimously 

"That  this  meeting  consider  the  attack  on  the  Frigate  Chesa 
peake,  as  the  commencement  of  a  war  on  the  United  States 
by  the  British  government,  and  entered  into  with  every  circum 
stance  of  perfidy  and  aggravation  which  is  calculated  to  ex 
cite  our  feelings,  and  unite  us  in  resentment  against  that 
nation.  That  in  a  government  like  ours,  where  no  artificial  dis 
tinctions  exist,  the  murder  of  one  citizen  ought  to  excite  the 
serious  and  effectual  resentment  of  the  government.  That  any 
farther  attempt  to  negociate  with  the  faithless  and  corrupt  gov 
ernment  of  Britain,  previous  to  her  making  the  most  satisfac 
tory  concessions  for  her  late  outrage,  would  be  derogatory  to 
our  national  honor  and  independence.  That  this  meeting  has 
full  and  entire  confidence  in  the  Executive  and  other  constituted 
authorities  of  the  United  States,  and  that  we  are  ready  and 
willing  to  support  them,  in  any  measures  they  may  think  proper 
to  adopt,  in  this  present  awful  crisis,  and  to  that  end,  we  do 
now  pledge  our  lives,  and  fortunes  and  our  sacred  honor. 

"That  this  meeting  are  greatly  pleased  at  the  unanimity 
which  prevails  among  every  description  of  citizens  in  our  towns, 
and  they  highly  approve  the  feelings  and  sentiments  expressed 
at  Norfolk,  Richmond,  Petersburg,  etc.  and  whilst  their  ex 
posed  situation  may  subject  them  to  greater  and  more  imme 
diate  calamities  than  the  inhabitants  removed  from  the  water, 
they  consider  that  their  conduct  on  that  account  merits  and 
demands  from  their  fellow-citizens  in  the  interior,  every  aid 

819  See  Enquirer,  July  28. 

820  See    Enquirer,    July    1-July   24,    180T.     The    following    are    some    of 
the   places   where   meetings   were  held:    Hampton,    Richmond,    Fredericks- 
burg,   Petersburg,   Manchester,   Alexandria,   Lynchburg,   Bent   Creek,   Port 
Royal  and  the  following  Court   Houses:  Albermarle,  Powhatan,   Caroline, 
Westmoreland,    King    and    Queen,    Amelia,    Louisa,    Fluvanna,    Orange, 
Cumberland. 

821  Enquirer,  July  21,  1807. 


114  WILLIAM  BRANCH  GILES 

and  comfort  which  they  may  require  during  the  progress  of 
the  conflict." 

Urged  to  declare  war  at  once,  or  at  least  to  call  an  im 
mediate  session  of  Congress,322  the  President  waited  and  allowed 
the  warlike  disposition  of  Congress  to  decline  in  fervor.  Mean 
while  he  dispatched  a  vessel  to  England  to  demand  reparation 
and  on  July  2,  in  a  proclamation  ordered  British  ships  out  of 
American  waters.  New  York,  New  Orleans,  and  Charleston 
were  put  in  a  state  of  defence  and  preparations  were  made 
for  calling  out  the  militia.  Apology  was  promptly  made  by 
the  British  government,  but  the  proclamation  of  July  2  was 
not  relished,  reparation  was  not  to  be  conceded  until  1811,  and 
refusal  was  made  to  couple  the  question  of  the  Chesapeake  with 
the  general  question  of  the  impressment  of  our  seamen. 

Before  further  developments  were  known  in  the  country,  Con 
gress  had,  on  October  26,  assembled  by  special  call  of  the  Presi 
dent. 32J  On  the  following  day,  the  message  was  received.324 
Softened  by  the  moderate  suggestions  of  Gallatin,325  it  recited 
the  events  in  our  relations  with  Great  Britain  since  the  depar 
ture  of  the  extraordinary  mission  to  London.  The  attack  on 
the  Chesapeake  and  the  President's  action  as  narrated  above 
were  described,  and,  in  addition,  mention  was  made  of  the  order 
in  council  dated  January  7,  1807,  and  the  seizures  made  under 
its  regulations.  Relations  with  Spain  were  described  as  un 
settled  and  a  decree  of  hers  in  harmony  with  Napoleon's  Berlin 
decree  was  spoken  of  as  an  additional  ground  of  complaint. 

822  By  W.  C.  Nicholas  in  letter  of  July  7,  1807,  Jefferson  MSS.,  Lib. 
of  Cong.  Nicholas  said:  "I  am  so  deeply  impressed  with  this  subject,  that 
if  I  directed  the  affairs  of  this  Country  I  would  instantly  employ  force 
to  avenge  the  injury  that  has  been  done  us,  I  would  not  ask  but  take 
satisfaction  ...  If  we  submit  to  such  indignities  and  injustices,  we 
should  become  contemptible  in  the  eyes  of  the  whole  world,  and  what  is 
much  worse  in  our  own.  There  is  no  spirit  which  ought  to  be  cherished 
with  so  much  care  by  those  who  govern  a  young  country  as  national  pride 
and  a  regard  to  national  honor."  See  also  sentiments  of  Gallatin  and 
Robert  Smith.  Adams's  Gallatin,  358.  Letter  of  Smith  to  Jefferson,  July 
17,  1807.  Adams  Transcripts,  vol.  iii. 

32SRichardson,  Messages  and  Papers,  1,  424. 

824  Ibid,  1,  425. 

826  Adams,  Gallatin,  363. 


CHESAPEAKE  OUTRAGE  AND  TREASON  BELL  115 

On  account  of  the  conditions  named,  the  states  had  been  asked 
to  hold  their  militia  in  readiness  and  the  acceptance  of  volun 
teers  encouraged.  "Whether  a  regular  army  is  to  be  raised, 
and  to  what  extent,  must  depend  on  the  information  so  shortly 
expected." 

In  addition  to  an  account  of  our  foreign  relations,  the  pro 
ceedings  of  the  Burr  trial  were  laid  before  Congress  and  that 
body  might  "judge  whether  the  defect  was  in  the  testimony, 
in  the  law,  or  in  the  administration  of  the  law ;  and  wherever 
it  shall  be  found,  the  Legislature  alone  can  supply  or  originate 
the  remedy."  Finally,  the  encouraging  state  of  the  treasury  was 
described.  Giles  did  not  attend  the  session  of  Congress  until 
January  7,  1808,  and  before  his  arrival  various  acts  making 
appropriations  for  defense  were  passed,  and,  on  December  22, 
an  act  was  placed  on  the  statute  book  with  which  he  was  later 
to  have  much  to  do.  A  special  message  of  the  President  com 
municated  the  king's  proclamation  of  October  17,  requiring  the 
complete  enforcement  of  the  right  of  seizure,  made  known  the 
decision  of  Napoleon  to  enforce  against  us  the  Berlin  decree, 
and  recommended  an  act  placing  an  embargo  on  our  shipping. 
Information  received,  but  not  officially,  of  the  British  order  in 
council  dated  November  11,  1807,  was  the  real  cause  of  the 
message.32'  Congress  was  so  well  in  hand  that  on  the  day  of  the 
message  the  Senate  passed  an  embargo  bill  and  in  four  days 
thereafter  it  became  a  law.32'  Before  the  session  ended  three 
supplementary  acts  were  passed  prescribing  penalties  for  viola 
tions  of  the  embargo  and  making  evasion  more  difficult  for 
coasters.  Also  discretionary  power  was  given  the  President 
to  suspend  the  laws  during  the  vacation  of  Congress.328 

With  these  matters  Giles  had  little  to  do.  But  it  was  thought 
best  to  make  a  statement  of  them  at  this  place  preparatory 
to  a  discussion  of  his  relation  to  the  restrictive  policy  at 
the  next  session.  With  another  portion  of  the  annual  message 
of  the  President,  he  was,  however,  deeply  concerned — that  por 
tion  which  had  referred  to  Congress  a  consideration  of  the 

326  National  Intelligencer,  December  18. 

'"Act,  December  22. 

328  Acts,  January  9,  March  12,  April  22,  and  April  25. 


116  WILLIAM  B.  GILES 

evidence  taken  in  the  Burr  trial.  On  the  twenty-sixth  of  Jan 
uary,  Giles  was  made  chairman  of  the  committee  who  were 
to  deal  with  that  part  of  the  message  and  on  February  5,  re 
ported  a  bill  "for  the  punishment  of  treason  and  other  crimes 
and  offences  against  the  United  States."  The  first  section  de 
clared  "that  if  any  persons  owing  allegiance  to  the  United 
States  of  America,  shall  levy  war  against  them,  by  assembling 
themselves  together  with  intent  forcibly  to  overturn  or  change 
the  Government  of  the  United  States,  or  anyone  of  the  Terri 
tories  thereof,  or  forcibly  to  dismember  the  said  United  States, 
or  anyone  of  them,  or  anyone  of  the  Territories  thereof,  or 
forcibly  to  resist  the  general  execution  of  any  public  law  there 
of,  or  forcibly  to  take  possession  of,  or  hold  any  fort,  maga 
zine,  dock,  navyyard,  or  of  any  public  vessel  of  the  United 
States,  or  to  forcibly  invade  or  hold  any  port  of  the  United 
States,  or  of  the  Territories  thereof,  against  the  authority  of 
the  United  States,  or  if  any  person  or  persons  shall  traitor 
ously  aid  or  assist  in  the  doing  anyone  of  the  acts  aforesaid, 
although  not  personally  present  when  any  such  act  is  done  or 
committed,  and  being  convicted  of  anyone  or  more  of  the  afore 
said  acts,  on  confession  in  open  court,  or  on  the  testimony  of 
two  witnesses  to  the  same  overt  act  of  treason,  whereof  he  or 
they  may  stand  indicted,  such  person  or  persons  shall  be  judged 
guilty  of  treason  against  the  United  States  and  shall  suffer 
death."329 

To  say  the  least,  it  will  be  admitted  that  the  terms  of  this 
bill  were  sufficiently  strong  and  definite  for  the  punishment  of 
what  was  thought  to  be  the  scheme  of  Aaron  Burr  or  of  the 
secessionists  of  1860  or  of  any  other  body  of  men  guilty  of  any 
thing  having  the  appearance  of  levying  war  on  the  United 
States.  Giles,  in  1828  and  1829,  was  advocating  a  plan  which  his 
bill  otf  1808  would  have  fitted  perfectly.  Opposition  to  the 
measuer  at  once  appeared  and  rested  on  the  following  grounds  : 
admitting  the  unsettled  condition  of  the  law  of  treason,  to  the 
courts  and  not  to  Congress  belonged  the  business  of  defining 
that  crime.  The  framers  of  the  Constitution  intentionally  did 

^Annals,  Tenth  Congress,  1st  session,  108. 


CHESAPEAKE  OUTRAGE  AND  TREASON  BILL  117 

not  assign  to  the  Legislative  body  the  power  to  define  treason. 
This  was  shown  by  the  Federalist  and  by  the  debates  in  the 
Virginia  Convention,  and  by  the  opinion  of  judges  and  law 
writers.  To  this  dilemma  Congress  was  reduced:  "If  Congress 
proceeds  in  the  manner  proposed  by  the  bill  to  define  treason, 
and  their  acts  are  binding  upon  the  judges,  then  succeeding 
Congresses  may  multiply  the  species  of  those  offences  to  any 
number  that  may  suit  the  purposes  of  an  infuriated  majority, 
and  the  courts  be  compelled  to  carry  those  acts  into  operation, 
however  mischievous  or  ruinous ;  or  if  statutes  which,  in  the 
opinion  of  the  judges,  militate  against  the  spirit  and  letter  of 
the  Constitution,  are  declared  by  them  to  be  of  no  force  or 
effect,  we  certainly  legislate  to  no  purpose."3 

On  the  eleventh  of  February,  Giles  spoke  in  defence  of  the 
bill.  Pointing  out  the  reasons  for  the  growth  of  the  power 
of  the  judiciary  in  the  United  States,  he  questioned  if  jurists 
had  not,  while  rightly  endeavoring  to  protect  the  innocent 
against  the  oppression  of  government,  gone  too  far  in  multi 
plying  barriers  to  the  extent  of  converting  them  "into  shields 
for  the  protection  of  guilt."  We  had  a  theory  of  the  indepen 
dence  of  the  judiciary,  but  it  was  a  mistake,  he  thought,  to 
say  that  the  judiciary  department  is  an  independent  depart 
ment — only  the  judges  and  not  the  judiciary,  are  to  be  re 
garded  as  independent.  Proceeding,  he  attempted  to  show  that 
the  definition  of  treason  in  the  Constitution  was  so  general  and 
the  decisions  of  the  courts  so  conflicting  as  to  make  it  desirable 
that  Congress  should  more  clearly  define  in  what  treason 
against  the  United  States  consisted.  He  criticised  the  course 
of  the  judges  in  the  Fries  case,  but  more  particularly  in  the 
case  of  Aaron  Burr.  Clearly  having  John  Marshall  in  mind, 
he  contrasted  the  "honorable  and  dignified  character  of  an  inde 
pendent  judge,"  with  "a  Judge,  who,  forgetting  the  nature  of 
his  office  is  perpetually  aspiring  not  only  to  render  his  depart 
ment  absolutely  independent,  but  to  render  it  supreme  over  all 
other  departments  of  the  Government;  in  the  one  case  he  is 

130  Annals,  Tenth  Congress,  1st  Session,  111.  See  speeches  of  Mitchell 
and  Pope,  February  11  and  February  24. 


118  WILLIAM  BRANCH  GILES 

placed  in  the  elevated  and  dignified  attitude  of  distributing  jus 
tice  impartially  among  his  fellow  citizens;  in  the  other,  he  is 
reduced  to  the  miserable  political  intriguer,  scrambling  for 
power."331  Undoubtedly  too  strong  and  justly  to  be  condemned 
for  its  disrespect  to  our  highest  court,  this  language  was  ex 
pressive  of  a  well-grounded  feeling  toward  Marshall  and  the 
courts.  The  immediate  translation  of  an  intense  partisan  to 
the  highest  judicial  position  in  the  land,  had  not,  as  the  case  of 
Marbury  vs.  Madison  and  the  Burr  trial  convincingly  show, 
converted  the  great  Virginia  Federalist  into  a  calm  and  impec 
cable  dispenser  of  justice,  forgetful  of  the  past  and  of  all  party 
conflicts. 

And  since  Giles's  day,  many  men,  not  in  heated  harangue,  but 
in  careful  discussion,  have  concluded  that  the  evils  feared  by  the 
Virginia  Senator  who  so  ferociously  assaulted  the  court,  have 
come  through  the  assumption  by  the  Judiciary  to  itself  of  an 
unwholesome  supremacy  over  the  other  departments  of  govern 
ment. 

One  who  heard  Giles's  speech  and  thoroughly  detested  his  doc 
trine  and  arguments  gives  us  one  of  the  best  descriptions  to  be 
found  of  him  at  that  time:  "Bayard,  Giles,  and  Hillhouse  are 
the  first  of  senatorial  champions,"  says  the  observer.332  "Giles 
exhibits  in  his  appearance  no  marks  of  greatness;  he  has  a 
dark  complexion  and  retreating  eyes,  black  hair  and  robust 
form.  His  dress  is  remarkably  plain,  and  in  the  style  of  Vir 
ginia  carelessness.  Having  broken  his  leg  a  year  or  two  since, 
he  uses  a  crutch,  and  perhaps  this  adds  somewhat  to  the  indif 
ference  or  doubt  with  which  you  contemplate  him.  But  when  he 
speaks,  your  opinion  immediately  changes;  not  that  he  is  an 
orator,  for  he  has  neither  action  nor  grace ;  nor  that  he  abounds 
in  rhetoric  or  metaphor ;  but  a  clear,  nervous  expression,  a  well 
digested  and  powerful  condensation  of  language,  give  to  the 
continual  flow  of  his  thoughts  an  uninterrupted  impression.  He 
holds  his  subject  always  before  him,  and  surveys  it  with  untir- 

831  Annals,  Tenth  Congress,  1st  Session,  February  11,  1808.     This  speech 
is  also  reprinted  in  Giles's  Political  Miscellanies. 

832  Sentences  with  reference  to  Bayard,  Hillhouse,  and  Adams  are  omitted. 


CHESAPEAKE  OUTRAGE  AND  TREASON  BILL  119 

ing  eyes;  he  points  out  his  objections  with  calculated  force, 
and  sustains  his  positions  with  penetrating  and  wary  argument. 
He  certainly  possesses  great  natural  strength  of  mind ;  and  if 
he  reasons  on  false  principles  or  with  sophistic  evasions,  he 
always  brings  to  his  subject  a  weight  of  thought,  which  can  be 
shaken  or  disturbed  only  by  the  attack  of  superior  wisdom.  I 
heard  him  a  day  or  two  since  in  support  of  a  bill,  to  define 
treason,  reported  by  himself.  Never  did  I  hear  such  all-unhing 
ing  and  terrible  doctrines.  He  laid  the  axe  at  the  root  of  judi 
cial  power,  and  every  stroke  might  be  distinctly  felt.  His  ar 
gument  was  very  specious  and  forensic,  sustained  with  many 
plausible  principles,  and  adorned  with  various  political  axioms, 
designed  ad  captandum.  One  of  its  objects  was  to  prove  the 
right  of  the  legislature  to  define  treason.  My  dear  friend,  look 
at  the  constitution  of  the  United  States,  and  see  if  any  such 
construction  can  possibly  be  allowed.  .  .  .  He  attacked 
Chief  Justice  Marshall  with  insidious  warmth.  Among 
other  things  he  said,  'I  have  learned  that  judicial  opinions  on 
this  subject  are  like  changeable  silks,  which  vary  their  colors  as 
they  are  held  up  in  political  sunshine'."3 

On  April  6,  Giles's  bill  passed  the  Senate  by  a  vote  of  18  to 
10,  but  failed  in  the  House.  This  bill  and  speech  was  the  cul 
mination  of  the  contest  which  had  been  going  on  between  the  ad 
ministration  and  the  judiciary  from  the  beginning  of  Jefferson's 
administration.  Incidents  in  this  contest  we  have  seen:  the 
judiciary  law  of  1802  with  its  repeal  of  the  Federalist  act  of 
1801  providing  berths  for  themselves  in  view  of  the  recent 
Republican  triumph;  the  case  of  Marbury  vs.  Madison,  in 
which  the  court  departed  from  the  ordinary  arrangement  of 
judicial  inquiry  in  order  to  strike  a  blow  at  the  administration, 
the  conduct  of  Associate  Justice  Chase  in  making  an  attack 
from  the  bench  on  the  new  Executive  and  Congress,  the  im 
peachment  of  him  and  the  insane  Pickering,  in  the  absence  of 
any  other  constitutional  method  of  removal,  and,  finally,  the 

"» Story,  Life  and  Letters  of  Joseph  Story,  i,  158-159.  Story  must  be 
mistaken  in  one  point:  according  to  family  tradition  and  to  the  miniature 
reproduced  in  this  volume,  Giles's  hair  was  sandy. 


120  WILLIAM  BRANCH  GILES 

Burr  trial,  wherein  the  Federalist  Chief  Justice  leaned  over 
much  to  the  enemies  of  the  Republican  President  and  the 
Republican  President  did  not  conceal  ill  feeling  at  the  course  of 
the  trial.  By  1808,  an  anti- judiciary  movement  of  considerable 
proportions  had  formed  itself  as  evidenced  by  motions  in  Con 
gress  and  resolutions  from  legislatures,334  of  which  that  of  Vir 
ginia  was  one.  Possessed  of  unlimited  courage,  but  lacking 
much  in  political  acumen,  Senator  Giles,  as  in  1793  against 
Hamilton,  voluntarily  led  the  assault  in  the  open,  only  to  meet 
inevitable  defeat  and  to  bear  at  the  bar  of  history  the  burden  of 
blame,  for  himself  and  his  brethren  who  voted  with  him. 

With  one  other  incident  growing  out  of  the  Burr  conspiracy 
Giles  was  to  be  connected  during  this  session.  The  grand  jury 
at  Richmond,  at  the  same  time  that  they  had  indicted  Burr,  also 
brought  in  charges  of  complicity  against  John  Smith,  Senator 
from  Ohio.  On  Nov.  27,  motion  was  made  for  an  inquiry  into 
the  question  whether  it  was  compatible  with  the  honor  and  priv 
ileges  of  the  Senate  that  Smith  should  retain  his  seat.  John 
Quincy  Adams,  chairman  of  the  committee  to  whom  the  matter 
was  referred,  reported  after  viewing  the  facts,  that  Smith 
should  be  expelled.335  Although  Mr.  Smith  was  not  a  Republi 
can  and  although  the  Republicans  in  the  Senate  were  generally 
for  his  expulsion,  Giles  broke  with  his  party  and  with  great  abil 
ity  opposed  the  resolution  of  expulsion.  No  one  detested  the 
Burr  conspiracy  more  than  Giles  and  no  one  was  more  hostile 
to  senators  who  became  public  contractors,336  but  he  refused  to 
yield  to  his  prejudice.  Without  intemperance  of  language  and 
heated  personalities  in  which  he  often  indulged,  he  gave  a  care 
ful  review  of  the  evidence  and  delivered  a  masterly  defence  of 

134  See  those  of  Nicholson  and  John  Randolph  following  the  Chase  trial, 
Senator  Tiffin's  on  November  5,  1807,  George  W.  Campbell's  of  January  30, 
1808.  See  Ames's  proposed  amendments  to  the  Constitution  in  Am. 
Hist,  Reports,  1896,  ii,  149;  Resolutions  of  Legislatures  of  Tennessee,  Ver 
mont,  Pennsylvania,  etc.  Adams,  iv,  205.  These  motions  and  resolutions 
called  for  a  definite  term  of  office  for  judges,  popular  election,  power 
of  the  executive  to  dismiss  judges  on  address  of  two  houses. 

888  Annals,  Tenth  Congress,  1st  Session,  55. 

886  This  was  the  case  with  Smith. 

^Giles's  Speeches  delivered  April  9. 


CHESAPEAKE  OUTRAGE  AND  TREASON  BILL  121 

the  accused  Senator.337  In  the  words  of  his  chief  opponent  in 
the  debate  and  most  bitter  enemy  of  the  future,  he  delivered 
"one  of  the  most  animated  and  eloquent  speeches  I  ever  heard 
him  make.  .  .  .  He  argued  the  case  of  Mr.  Smith  with  all 
his  eloquence,  and  returned  to  the  charge  with  increasing 
warmth  until  the  last  moment."3  Smith  was  not  expelled  for 
lack  of  a  two-thirds  vote339  but  afterwards  withdrew  from  the 
Senate. 

838  Adams,  Memoirs,  I   (April  9,  1808). 
889  Annals,  Tenth  Congress,  1st  Session,  324. 


CHAPTER  IX 

THE  CAMPAIGN  OF  1808: 

REPEAL  OF  THE  EMBARGO 

Before  his  second  inauguration  in  1805,  Jefferson  had  deter 
mined  not  to  be  a  candidate  for  a  third  term  of  office.  On  Jan 
uary  6,  he  wrote  to  John  Taylor  of  Caroline  a  letter  giving  ex 
pression  to  his  views  on  the  subject.  He  had  originally  be 
lieved  in  a  seven  years'  term  for  the  executive  with  perpetual 
ineligibility  thereafter.  But  his  mind  had  changed.  "The  ser 
vice  for  8  years  with  a  power  to  remove  at  the  end  of  the 
first  four,  comes  nearly  to  my  principle  as  corrected  by  exper 
ience.  And  it  is  in  adherance  to  that  that  I  determined  to  with 
draw  at  the  end  of  my  second  term."  Washington  had  set  an 
example,  he  would  follow  it,  and  a  few  more  precedents  "will 
oppose  the  obstacle  of  habit  to  anyone  after  awhile  who  shall 
endeavor  to  extend  his  term."  There  was  "but  one  circum 
stance  which  could  engage  my  acquiescence  in  another  election, 
to  wit,  such  a  division  about  a  successor  as  might  bring  in  a 
Monarchist."3  There  was,  indeed,  no  danger  of  bringing  in  a 
monarchist,  but  about  a  division  there  could  be  no  doubt.  On 
the  28th  of  June,  John  Randolph  had  written  to  Gallatin:  "I 
regret  exceedingly  Mr.  Jefferson's  resolution  to  retire,  and  al 
most  as  much  the  premature  announcement  of  that  determin 
ation.  It  almost  precludes  a  revision  of  his  purpose,  to  say 
nothing  of  the  intrigues  it  will  set  on  foot.  If  I  were  sure  that 
Monroe  would  succeed  him,  my  regret  would  be  much  dimin 
ished."3  Fearing  intrigues  but  more  especially  desiring  Mon 
roe's  selection,  Randolph  began  some  intriguing  of  his  own.  As 
a  matter  of  fact,  the  history  of  the  campaign  of  1808  goes  back 
to  the  beginning  of  1804  when  on  account  of  the  Yazoo  inves 
tigation,  in  which  Madison  had  participated,  Randolph  had  lost 
confidence  in  the  Secretary's  integrity.  Madison's  Yazoo  con 
nection,  and  his  desertion  of  the  pure  Republican  doctrines  of 

340  Writings  of  Thomas  Jefferson,   (Ford)  viii,  339. 
841  Adams,  John  Randolph,  161. 


CAMPAIGN  or  1808:  REPEAL  OF  EMBARGO  123 

1798,  had  made  it  impossible  for  John  Randolph,  uncompromis 
ing,  radical,  vaunting  in  his  purity  and  his  untarnished  Repub 
lican  faith  handed  down  from  the  days  of  the  prophets  of  that 
doctrine,  to  countenance  Madison's  successor  to  Jefferson's 
office.  By  the  summer  of  1806  he  had  convinced  himself  of  the 
probability  of  Monroe's  success  at  least  in  his  own  state. 
Writing  June  6,  to  his  friend  Nicholson,  he  asserted  "however 
we  may  differ  on  the  subject  of  the  present  administration,  all 
parties  here  (I  speak  of  the  Republicans)  unite  in  support  of 
Monroe  for  President.  I  have  heard  of  but  one  dissenting 
voice,  Giles,  who  is  entirely  misled :"  and  again  on  June  24,  "You 
ask  what  are  our  prospects  in  Virginia.  Depend  upon  it,  a  very 
large  majority  of  us  are  decidedly  opposed  to  Madison's  pre 
tensions  ;  and  if  the  other  states  leave  it  to  Virginia,  he  will 
never  be  President."3  At  the  same  time,  he  was  writing  Mon 
roe  urging  him  to  run  and  describing  in  heightened  colors  the 
conduct  of  the  administration.343  But,  though  loving  Monroe 
and  earnestly  working  for  his  success,  Randolph's  principal 
thought  was  to  defeat  Madison,  and  to  that  end  he  was  willing, 
in  order  to  prevent  a  division  of  the  enemies  of  the  secretary,  to 
throw  his  forces  into  the  fight  for  George  Clinton,344  the  candi 
date  of  the  discontented  New  York  Republicans.  For  the  Fed 
eralists  there  was  no  hope  of  success.  They  could  only  unite 
where  feasible,  with  the  Monroe  and  Clinton  forces  to  defeat  the 
common  enemy. 

In  this  contest  for  the  Presidency,  not  the  least  important 
friend  of  Madison  was  William  Branch  Giles.  His  hostility  in 
1806  to  Randolph  and  his  incredulity  as  to  Monroe's  success  we 
have  seen  above.  He  was,  indeed,  one  of  the  most  active  lieuten 
ants  of  the  Secretary.  On  the  21st  of  January,  the  friends  of 
Madison  in  the  Virginia  General  Assembly  held,  at  the  Bell 
Tavern,  a  caucus  "managed"  by  Giles  and  W.  C.  Nicholas. 
One  hundred  and  nineteen  members  were  present,  chiefly  from 

842  Adams,  Randolph,  196-197. 

848  Ibid,  199  et  seq.  Others  were  aiding  in  stimulating  Monroe's  discon 
tent.  See  letters  of  John  Taylor  to  Monroe,  February  27,  1806 — Branch 
Historical  Papers,  June  1908,  290. 

mSee  Letter  to  Nicholson,  February  20,  1808;  Adams,  Randolph,  233. 


124  WILLIAM  BRANCH  GILES 

the  counties  of  the  Piedmont  and  the  region  west  of  the  Blue 
Ridge.345  The  friends  of  Monroe  also  held  their  caucus,  some  of 
the  Federalists  going  with  them.  On  the  23rd  in  pursuance  of  a 
call  issued  by  Senator  Bradley  of  Vermont,  but  thought  to  have 
been  inspired  by  Giles  and  Nicholas,346  a  Congressional  caucus 
assembled  in  Washington.  The  Monroe  and  Clinton  men  re 
mained  away  and  no  difficulty  therefore  was  experienced  by  the 
managers  in  securing  the  nomination  of  Madison  by  a  vote  of 
eighty-three  out  of  eighty-nine  voting  and  of  Clinton  for  the 
vice-presidency  by  seventy-nine  votes.  On  motion  of  Nicholas,  a 
committee  of  correspondence  and  arrangement  consisting  of 
one  member  from  each  state  was  appointed  and  Giles  received 
that  honor  for  Virginia.  Before  adjournment  Giles  introduced 
a  resolution  recommending  Madison  and  Clinton  for  the  office 
of  President  and  Vice-President  respectively  but  stating  that 
the  members  of  the  caucus  have  adopted  this  measure  "from  a 
deep  conviction  of  the  importance  of  union  to  the  Republicans 
in  the  present  crisis  of  both  our  external  and 
internal  affairs."347  Against  this  meeting  the  friends  of  Mon 
roe  issued  a  formal  protest  signed  by  seventeen  names, 
among  which  was  that  of  John  Randolph.  After  a  preamble 
declaring  their  hostility  to  a  caucus  at  this  time,  and  the 
reasons  for  their  dislike  of  Madison,  they  conclude  by  saying: 
"We  do  therefore  in  the  most  solemn  manner  protest  against 
the  proceedings  at  the  meeting  held  in  the  Senate  chamber  on 
the  twenty-third  of  January  last  because  we  consider  them 

"As  being  in  direct  hostility  to  the  principles  of  the  con 
stitution  : 

"As  a  gross  assumption  of  power  not  delegated  by  the 
people,  and  not  justified  or  extenuated  by  any  actual  necessity: 

"As  an  attempt  to  produce  an  undue  bias  in  the  ensuing 
election  of  President  and  Vice-President,  and  virtually  to  trans 
fer  the  appointment  of  those  officers  from  the  people,  to  a 
majority  of  the  two  Houses  of  Congress. 

^Enquirer,  January  23,  1808. 

846  Adams,  Memoirs,  i,  505-508. 

847  National  Intelligencer,  January  25,  1808. 


CAMPAIGN  or  1808:  REPEAL  OF  EMBARGO  125 

"And  we  do  in  the  same  manner  protest  against  the  nom 
ination  of  James  Madison,  as  we  believe  him  to  be  unfit  to  fill 
the  office  of  President  in  the  present  juncture  of  our  affairs."348 

The  war  against  King  caucus  which  Andrew  Jackson  immor 
talized  was,  then,  declared  by  John  Randolph  in  February, 
1808.  In  Virginia,  "one  of  the  people,"  William  Wirt,  answered 
the  protest  and  "one  of  the  Protesters,"  John  Randolph,  made 
bold  reply.349 

Appointed  manager  for  Virginia,  Giles  was  not  inactive.  By 
conversation,  and  by  correspondence,  and  not  improbably  by 
newspaper  articles  if  one  might  judge  by  his  later  frequent 
indulgence  in  newspaper  controversy,  he  used  his  best  endeavors 
to  forward  the  cause.  His  energies  were  evidently  not  wasted, 
for  one  of  his  letters  attracted  the  attention  of  Monroe.350  The 
letter  in  question  was  written  to  Chancellor  Taylor  on  March 
27, 1808,  in  answer  to  one  by  Taylor.351  It  is  a  very  long  letter, 
covering  two  columns  in  the  Richmond  Enquirer  when  printed 
in  1826,  and  cannot  therefore  be  reproduced  here  except  in  sub 
stance.  In  this  letter  Giles  regretted  the  political  divisions — 
though  he  had  foreseen  them — and  claimed  that  he  was  making 
one  more  attempt  to  moderate  the  irritations  arising  from  them. 
His  own  conduct  had  been  so  exemplary  that  he  wished  Monroe 
to  be  fully  informed.  From  the  time  he  reached  Washington,  he 
had  not  mentioned  the  subject  of  the  Presidency  unless  the  sub 
ject  were  mentioned  to  him — except  to  Virginians.  And  when 
he  had  spoken  of  the  matter,  it  had  been  invariably,  not  to  make 
charges  against  Monroe,  but  to  defend  the  administration 
against  charges  brought  by  friends  of  that  gentleman.  These 
charges  he  then  recited  and  gave  the  answer  which  he  had  made 
in  each  case.  Charge  number  one  was  that  Jefferson  and  Madi 
son  were  in  favor  of  war  with  Great  Britain,  whereas  Monroe 
was  for  peace.  To  this  he  had  replied  that  both  the  President 

848  National   Intelligencer,   March  7,   1808. 

^Enquirer,  March  18,  221-229,  April  26,  1808. 

^Monroe,  Writings   (Hamilton),  v,  75-78,  note. 

151  Taylor's  letter  was  probably  one  that  appeared  in  the  Enquirer 
March  22,  1808,  under  the  pseudonym  "Casca",  in  which  Giles  is  invited 
to  specify  his  charges  against  Monroe, 


126  WILLIAM  BRANCH  GILES 

and  the  Secretary  were  so  peacefully  inclined  that  they  could 
not  be  brought  to  look  "with  sufficient  attention  at  the  opposite 
picture."  The  second  charge  was  that  the  administration  had 
rejected  a  treaty  made  by  Monroe  and  Pinkney  and  on  hon 
orable  terms  for  the  United  States.  In  answer  Giles  vouch 
safed  to  affirm  that  the  treaty  was  not  of  the  character  de 
scribed,  that  it  was  accompanied  by  a  declaration  made  by  the 
British  Commissioners  which  rendered  its  ratification  inadmis 
sible,  and  it  was,  besides,  made  on  terms  contrary  to  instructions 
given  by  the  American  negotiators.  Charge  number  three  was 
that  the  administration  had  added  Pinkney  to  Monroe  "to  de 
prive  Monroe  of  the  eclat  of  that  negotiation"  in  order  that  he 
might  not  be  elected  to  the  Presidency.  This  was  not  true ;  as 
a  matter  of  fact,  Jefferson's  partiality  for  Monroe  had  excited 
unpleasant  feelings.  But  why  should  he  throw  his  influence  for 
Monroe?  Even  if  Virginia  were  for  him,  he  had  no  chance.  Leav 
ing  out  Madison,  Republicans  would  choose,  not  Monroe  but 
George  Clinton,  who  was  older  than  George  the  Third  himself 
and,  therefore,  in  his  [Giles's]  opinion,  ineligible.  What  had  in 
jured  Monroe  was  not  attacks  on  him  but  the  pro-British  and 
antiadministration  attitude  of  his  friends — men  who  in  their 
memorials  were  denouncing  the  embargo.  Those  who  thought 
as  did  his  correspondent  that  the  Secretary's  chances  were  slim 
were  under  misapprehension — these  chances  were  improving 
all  the  time. 

As  for  himself,  he  had  taken  part  with  reluctance  and  desired 
only  the  public  good.  On  account  of  his  infirmities  he  took  no 
pleasure  in  public  life,  and  would  probably  be  compelled  to 
withdraw  from  its  conflicts.352 

The  newspaper  struggle  in  Virginia  over  the  election  had  been 
going  on  ever  since  John  Randolph,  John  Taylor,  and  Nath 
aniel  Macon  had  laid  their  wires.  The  Enquirer  was  an  admin 
istration  organ;  it  regretted  the  divisions — wished  they  could 
be  settled  by  a  friendly  conference — but,  having  to  choose, 
favored  Madison.352"  However,  in  those  innocent  days,  when  all 

852  See  Enquirer,  April  1,  1826.  The  letter  was  published  at  that  time 
to  show  that  Giles  had  not,  in  earlier  years,  been  hostile  to  Monroe. 

8E2aSee  for  instance,  Enquirer,  January  13,  April  7,  1807;  February  2, 
September  20,  1808,  etc. 


CAMPAIGN  OF  1808:   REPEAL  OF  EMBARGO  127 

the  acts  of  partisan  warfare  and  newspaper  ingenuity  had  not 
been  developed,  Trojan  and  Tyrian  met  with  equal  treatment 
when  they  sought  to  expound  their  views  in  party  periodicals. 
William  Wirt  and  John  Randolph,  Peyton  Randolph  and  Ben 
jamin  Watkins  Leigh,  George  Hay  and  John  Taylor,  and  other 
lesser  men  poured  forth  their  eloquence  and  argument  over  high 
sounding  signatures,  Hermodeus  and  Aristides,  Opechancan- 
ough,  and  Panurge,  Tullius,  Hortensius,  and  Publicola.  Mon 
roe's  mission,  the  treaty,  the  conduct  of  the  administration,  the 
respective  merits  of  the  candidates,  were  displayed  in  terms 
glowing  with  praise  or  scorching  with  indignation  ;35i!  Federa 
lists  were  charged,  and  not  untruthfully,35*  with  cooperation 
with  the  partisans  of  Monroe,  and  both  of  the  accused  hast 
ened  to  make  denial.  On  the  other  hand,  it  was  asserted,  with 
truth,  that  many  of  the  Federalists  were  favorable  to  Madison. 
Heated  and  interesting  as  the  contest  was,  there  was  never  a 
doubt  as  to  its  outcome.  Madison  received  in  Virginia,  accord 
ing  to  an  account  of  November  22,  1802,  12,451  votes,  Monroe 
2,770,  and  Pinckney  435.  355  The  returns  showed  some  other 
things  besides  the  choice  of  Virginia  ;  they  showed  that  the 
charge  that  the  Federalists  were  supporting  the  anti-admin 
istration  Republicans  was  true,356  and  that  Tidewater  Virginia 
did  not  believe  enthusiastically  in  the  embargo.357  But,  from 
the  country  as  a  whole,  the  returns  were  pleasing  to  the  admin 
istration  and  its  friends.  Madison  received  122  out  of  176 
electoral  votes  ;  all  but  fourteen  of  the  opposition  votes  had 
come  from  New  England  and  even  Vermont  had  voted  properly. 
Anti-administration  Democrats  had  to  be  content  with  six  votes, 


858  See  Enquirer,  1807  and  1808,  almost  any  number. 

354  See  for  instance  an  account  of  a  Federalist  meeting  recommending 
Monroe,  Enquirer,  October  18,  1808. 

sw  Argus,  November  22,  1808. 

586  However,  Madison  received  a  number  of  Federalist  votes. 

8177  Monroe  carried  only  five  counties  and  one  city.  The  vote  in  Nor 
folk  borough  'was  202  for  Madison,  248  for  Monroe,  and  2  for  Pinckney; 
in  Princess  Anne  80,  148,  0;  Warwick,  17,  39,  0;  Loudon  87,  124,  0;  North 
ampton  9,  21,  0;  Accomac,  30,  397,  0;  In  Williamsburg  Federalists  and 
anti-administration  together  secured  20  and  Madison  19.  In  the  western 
counties  generally  the  administration  received  all  or  almost  all  of  the  votes 
cast. 


128  WILLIAM  BRANCH  GILES 

and  James  Monroe  with  none.358  This  was  a  famous  victory  and 
indicated  that  the  majority  of  American  citizens  believed  in  the 
policies  of  the  Republican  rule.  But  there  were  some  things 
about  the  victory  to  make  one  pause  and  reflect.  In  the  first 
place,  four  years  before  the  result  had  been  more  triumphant. 
Only  fourteen  electoral  votes  then  fell  to  the  lot  of  the  opposi 
tion,  now  they  receive  fifty-four.  Besides,  in  1804,  only  two 
states  had  gone  for  the  Federalists ;  now  there  were  five,  four  of 
them  being  New  England  states,  whereas  in  1804  only  one  New 
England  college  of  electors  had  voted  against  Thomas  Jeffer 
son.  Federalist  governors,  legislators  and  Congressmen  were 
also  now  chosen  in  eastern  states  to  take  the  place  of  the  fol 
lowers  of  Jefferson  who  held  those  places  of  distinction. 35J  Had 
the  choice  of  presidential  electors  been  by  the  people  in  all  cases, 
the  Republican  majority  for  Madison  might  have  been  appre 
ciably  reduced.36(  Was  this  the  result  only  of  the  natural  de 
cline  of  Republican  popularity,  or  of  the  inevitable  growth  of 
dissension?  Or  was  there  a  deep  cause  for  the  turning  of  newly- 
converted  New  England  back  to  Federalism?  The  cause  was, 
indeed,  not  far  to  seek ;  in  1804  there  had  been  no  embargo ;  no 
prohibition  of  New  England  trade — now  there  was  embargo 
several  times  reinforced  and  New  England  was  filled  with  grum 
blers. 

The  embargo  act  passed  December  22,  1807,  had  at  first 
been  popular.  On  February  8,  1808,  the  General  Court  of 
Massachusetts,  then  Republican,  resolved  that  "we  consider 
the  imposing  of  the  Embargo  a  wise  and  highly  expedient 
measure,  and  from  its  important  nature  calculated  to  secure 
to  us  the  blessings  of  peace."3  The  Legislature  of  Virginia 
on  January  13,  1808,  declared  "it  a  duty  we  owe  ourselves,  to 
declare  that  we  submit  with  pleasure,  to  the  privations  arising 

858  Schouler,  ii,  Appendix  A. 

359  por  instance  the  legislature  of  Massachusetts  in  spring,  1808,  candi 
dates  for  Congress,  in  New  Hampshire  and  Rhode  Island,  the  Governor 
of  Vermont. 

860  Electors  in  Vermont,  Mass.,  Conn.,  N.  Y.,  Del.,  S.  Carolina,  Georgia 
were   chosen   by   the   legislature.     See    Stanwood,    History  of    Presidential 
Elections,  56. 

861  Resolves  of  the  General  Court  of  Mass.,  1808,  89,  90. 


CAMPAIGN  OF  1808:   REPEAL  or  EMBARGO  129 

from  the  energetic  measures  recently  adopted  by  the  consti 
tuted  authorities  in  laying  an  embargo,  which  meets  our  warm 
approbation,"  and  "Resolved  unanimously,  that  the  general 
assembly,  .  .  .  hereby  solemnly  pledge  the  whole  energies 
of  their  commonwealth,  to  the  support  of  such  meassures 
as  may  be  adopted  to  further  an  honorable  peace,  or 
avenge  the  injured  honor,  of  these  states."362  Virginia  held  to 
her  opinion ;  but  Massachusetts  not  long  afterwards  announced 
a  different  one.  On  March  8,  1808,  Madison,  viewing  the  recep 
tion  of  the  measure,  had  written  to  William  Pinkney,  "the  Em 
bargo  continues  to  take  deeper  root  in  the  public  sentiment,  and 
in  the  measures  of  Congress."3  Soon,  however,  different  sen 
timents  were  heard.  The  operation  of  the  law,  the  severity  of 
the  supplementary  acts,  the  discretion  of  the  President,  which 
was  exercised  in  what  was  considered  a  most  arbitrary  manner, 
the  agitation  of  politicians  anxious  to  make  capital  out  of 
whatever  might  give  opportunity  for  victory — all  contributed 
to  start  a  great  cry  of  discontent,  of  fierce  criticism,  and  of 
defiance  that  to  Jefferson  seemed  to  thunder  beneath  his  feet. 
Town  meetings  were  held,  addresses  to  the  President  were  adopt 
ed,  resolutions  of  legislatures  were  voted,  instructions  were  sent 
to  Senators  of  the  United  States.  Commercial  America  had 
determined  on  repeal  or  nullification,  or  probably  secession. 
In  the  summer  of  1808,  during  the  recess  of  Congress,  a  battle 
royal  had  been  fought  between  the  President,  determined  to 
enforce  the  law,  and  the  merchants  and  sailors  of  New  England 
determined  to  evade  it.  When  Congress  met,  however,  the 
President's  spirit  had  declined.  Unwilling  to  tie  the  hands  of  a 
successor  by  policies  which  he  might  recommend,  he  did  not 
make  recommendations  as  to  the  embargo. 

He  expressed  himself  as  gratified  at  the  effects  of  the  law  but 
let  it  "rest  with  the  wisdom  of  Congress  to  decide  on  the  course 
best  adapted  to  such  a  state  of  things."364 

In  the  House,  the  portion  of  the  message  on  foreign  affairs 
was  sent  to  a  committee  whose  chairman  was  G.  W.  Campbell. 

863  Acts,  1807-1809,  83-84. 

*»  Writings  (Hunt),  viii,  19. 

164  Message  of  November  8,  1808,  Richardson,  i,  453. 


130  WILLIAM  BEANCH  GILES 

But  before  this  committee  could  report,  a  vigorous  effort  had 
been  made  to  secure  the  adoption  of  resolutions  calling  for  the 
immediate  repeal  of  the  embargo.36'  In  the  Senate,  a  resolution 
was  proposed  by  Hillhouse  and  a  debate  began  on  November  21 
and  continued  through  December  2.  The  position  of  the  Feder 
alists  as  presented  by  Hillhouse,  Lloyd,  Adams,  and  White  of 
Delaware,  was  in  brief  as  follows :  the  purpose  of  the  embargo 
had  always  been  different  from  the  reason  assigned;  it  did  no 
good — France  was  satisfied  with  it;  England  did  not  suffer 
from  it ;  it  was  not  obeyed  by  our  countrymen ;  it  was  encour 
aging,  therefore,  a  spirit  of  disobedience.  It  should  be  repealed 
and  the  merchants  be  allowed  to  follow  their  own  ways — that 
is,  throw  themselves  into  the  arms  of  England.  We  ought  to 
have  neither  war  nor  non-intercourse  in  its  place.  Great  Bri 
tain  was  so  strong  that  we  could  not  hurt  her  and  France  so 
contemptible  that  she,  without  our  help,  could  not  hurt  us. 
The  Republican  position  was  upheld  by  Pope  of  Kentucky, 
Smith  of  Maryland,  Moore  of  Virginia,  Crawford  of  Georgia, 
and  Mitchell  of  New  York. 

On  the  24th,  Giles  arose.  Realizing  that  the  burden  of  the 
support  of  the  policy  of  embargo  rested  on  him,  he  spoke  at 
great  length,  and  with  great  earnestness  and  ability.  Other 
Republicans  who  preceded  him,  although  answering  the  attacks 
of  the  opposition,  had  spoken  in  uncertain  tones  and  given  but 
poor  defence  of  the  merits  of  the  Embargo,  admitting  it  had  not 
succeeded  as  was  expected,  and  hinting  they  would  not  grieve 
over  its  repeal.  Not  so  with  Mr.  Giles — that  was  not  his  man 
ner  of  speech.  After  a  preliminary  blow  at  the  Federalists, 
who,  smarting  under  the  defeat  of  the  recent  election,  would 
destroy  that  "union  of  mind  and  action"  which  our  dearest 
interests  demand,"  he  entered  into  an  interesting  and  exceeding 
ly  ingenious  argument  in  opposition  to  the  resolution  of  repeal. 
There  were  two  objects,  he  had  always  understood,  "contem 
plated  by  the  embargo  laws.  The  first,  precautionary,  opera 
ting  upon  ourselves.  The  second,  coercive,  operating  upon  the 
agressing  belligerents."  The  first  object  had  been  answered 

885  Annals,  Tenth  Congress,  2nd  Session,  16. 


CAMPAIGN  OF  1808:  REPEAL  OF  EMBARGO  131 

beyond  his  most  sanguine  expectations.  It  was  admitted  by  all 
that  the  embargo  laws  had  saved  an  enormous  amount  of  prop 
erty  and  a  number  of  seamen,  "which,  without  them,  would  have 
forcibly  gone  into  the  hands  of  our  enemies,  to  pamper  their  ar 
rogance,  stimulate  their  injustice,  and  increase  their  means  of 
annoyance."  "It  has,"  he  declared,  "preserved  our  people — it 
has  saved  our  honor — it  has  saved  our  national  independence." 
Taking  up  the  objection  that  the  embargo  had  been  injurious 
to  the  merchant  and  the  farmer,  he  was  willing  to  admit  that 
there  were  many  worthy  merchants,  of  small  capital,  who  suf 
fered  by  the  suspension  of  their  employments ;  and  he  was  sorry 
for  them;  but  this  suffering  was  incidental  to  every  coerced 
state  of  things ;  and  was  attributable,  not  properly  to  the  em 
bargo,  but  to  the  causes  that  rendered  its  adoption  indispen 
sable.  As  to  the  farmer,  Giles  knew  something  about  that  oc 
cupation;  "The  American  farmer  is,"  he  said,  "now  enjoying 
the  fruits  of  his  honest  industry,  in  peace  and  security,  blessed 
at  the  time  with  every  political,  social,  and  domestic  enjoyment, 
perfectly  exempt  from  all  vexations,  and  I  had  almost  said  tax 
ations,  and  with  pleasure  beholds  a  surplus  of  fourteen  millions 
of  dollars  in  the  public  Treasury  after  paying  every  debt  which 
could  be  demanded  of  the  honor  of  the  Government  .  .  . 
I  believe,  and  every  sensible  farmer  will  believe,  that  he  has  for 
the  last  ten  months  obtained  more  for  his  surplus  plenty  under 
the  embargo,  than  he  could  have  done  in  any  other  state  of 
things,  which  was  in  the  choice  of  the  government. 
Would  you  tell  the  farmer  that  he  would  get  more  for  his  sur 
plus  produce  in  time  of  war,  than  he  has  received  since  the  em 
bargo?"  The  farmers  would  endure  war  "rather  than  surrender 
their  own  liberties,  and  the  nation's  honor,  independence,  and 
sovereignty ;  let  us  then  for  a  time,  sir,  bear  our  present  priva 
tions — let  war  be  the  last  experiment."  Some  advantages,  fur 
thermore,  in  the  opinion  of  Giles,  accrued  to  the  farmer — he 
was  compelled  to  devote  more  attention  at  this  time  to  the 
improvement  of  his  land  and  the  development  of  household 
manufactures. 


132  WILLIAM  BRANCH  GILES 

Not  only  the  seaman,  the  merchant,  and  the  farmer  were  bet 
ter  off,  said  Giles,  because  of  the  embargo,  but  the  manufac 
turer,  the  laborer,  the  mechanic  were  profiting.  Houses  were 
being  built,  and  the  internal  improvements  stimulated.  As  far 
as  the  embargo  laws  had  been  precautionary,  he  claimed,  there 
fore,  that  their  success  had  been  complete,  "and  while  they  have 
been  attended  with  some  privations  and  sufferings,  they  had  not 
been  without  their  beneficent  effects  on  society."  What  had 
been,  he  asked,  the  actual  effects  of  these  laws  on  the  bellig 
erents,  and  in  so  far  as  they  have  failed,  what  were  the  causes? 
They  had,  he  asserted,  lessened  inducements  of  England  and 
France  to  war  by  keeping  out  of  their  way  the  rich  spoils  of 
our  commerce,  which  had  invited  their  cupidity,  and  which 
was  saved  by  these  laws;  they  enhanced  "the  prices  of  all 
American  produce,  especially  articles  of  the  first  necessity  to 
them,  to  a  considerable  degree,  and,  if  it  be  a  little  longer 
persisted  in,  will  either  banish  our  produce  (which  I  believe 
indispensible  to  them)  from  their  markets  altogether,  or  in 
crease  the  prices  to  an  enormous  amount."  To  sustain  this 
latter  point,  quotations  on  grain,  cotton,  tobacco,  lumber  were 
given  by  him  from  the  Liverpool  Price  Current. 

And  English  revenue  would  be  diminished.  Why  had  not 
Great  Britain,  influenced  by  these  inducements,  repealed  her 
orders  in  council?  Because  of  their  information,  "that  the 
people  of  the  United  States  had  become  false  to  themselves ; 
had  refused  to  bear  the  necessary  privations  imposed  by  the 
Government ;  had,  in  fact,  separated  themselves  from  their  own 
Government."  If  the  embargo  laws  had  not  been  a  complete 
success,  their  failure,  he  was  justified  in  saying  had  been  owing 
"to  extraordinary  causes,  which  could  neither  have  been  fore 
seen  nor  anticipated  at  the  time  of  the  adoption  of  the  measure, 
and,  therefore,  could  not  furnish  any  imputation  against  its 
policy  or  wisdom." 

If  not  a  continuance  of  the  embargo,  what?  "There  are  no 
substitutes  for  the  embargo,  but  war  or  submission."  It  was 
said,  the  embargo  could  not  be  enforced.  The  government  did, 
in  Giles's  opinion,  possess  power  to  enforce  laws.  The 


CAMPAIGN  OF  1808:  REPEAL  OF  EMBARGO  133 

majority  should  govern.  The  militia  of  Massachusetts  would 
themselves  put  down,  when  called  upon  lawfully,  any  insurrec 
tion  stimulated  by  "electioneering  leaders  and  partisans." 
But  he  had  little  fear  of  these  insurrections.  The  interest  of 
the  people  of  New  England,  men  of  property  and  family,  en 
joying  peculiar  advantages  from  the  operations  of  the  General 
Government,  had  nothing  to  gain  by  insurrection,  and  not  they 
but  Great  Britain  would  gain  by  a  connection  with  that  power. 

He  was  not,  he  said,  an  apologist  for  France — both  bellig 
erents  injured  us  as  badly  as  they  were  able.  But  he  wished 
to  denounce  "the  idle  and  ridiculous  tale  of  French  influence, 
which  has  so  disrespectfully  and  disgracefully  to  our  country 
been  circulated  by  newspapers."  It  was  originated  by  British 
influence,  invented  by  the  British  cabinet,  and  probably  as  had 
been  suggested  to  him,  transmitted  in  a  letter  by  the  Governor 
of  Nova  Scotia  to  certain  partisans  in  Boston.366  This  long  and 
able  speech  was  concluded  by  an  appeal  for  unity.  We  were 
fighting,  he  thought,  for  the  principle  of  neutrality:  "The 
eyes  of  the  world  are  now  turned  to  us."  If  we  submitted, 
Great  Britain,  France,  all  the  world  would  despise  us."  "Let 
us  then,  sir,"  he  pleaded,  "banish  all  personal  feelings;  let  us 
present  to  our  enemies,  the  formidable  front  of  an  indissoluble 
band  of  brothers,  nothing  else  is  necessary  to  our  success." 

If  no  one  else  was  firm,  Giles  was ;  if  others  wavered,  he  did 
not ;  persist  in  the  restrictive  policy  unless  you  wish  war.  There 
is  no  middle  ground.  This  was  at  least  specific.  Such  was 
not  the  sentiment  of  the  report  made  by  Campbell  to  the  House 
on  November  22,  written  by  Gallatin,  agreed  upon  as  the 
policy  of  the  administration  newly  elected,  and  concluding  with 
these  resolutions:  "that  the  United  States  cannot,  without  a 
sacrifice  of  their  rights,  honor,  and  independence,  submit  to  the 
late  edicts  of  Great  Britain  and  France."  "That  it  is  ex 
pedient  to  prohibit,  by  law,  the  admission  into  the  ports  of  the 
United  States"  vessels  from  countries  having  in  force  decrees 

868  John  Quincy  Adams  had  so  informed  Giles  and  others,  in  March, 
1808.  Memoirs,  i,  518-521.  See  Giles  to  Adams,  December  17,  1808. 
Niles's  Register,  35,  191. 


134  WILLIAM  BRANCH  GILES 

violating  our  neutral  rights,  and  likewise  the  importation  of 
their  products.  "That  measures  ought  to  be  immediately  taken 
for  placing  the  country  in  a  more  complete  state  of  defence."367 
These  resolutions  were  under  discussion  at  the  same  time  that 
the  debate  in  the  Senate  on  the  motion  of  Hillhouse  was  going 
on.  After  earnest  debate,  they  passed  the  House  by  a  large 
vote,  the  last  unanimously,  the  first  by  a  vote  of  118  to  2.368 
That  was  the  programme;  a  programme  to  which  all  might 
agree.  But  it  did  not  in  definite  terms  include  the  continuance 
of  the  embargo.  The  debate  on  that  subject  went  on  in  the 
Senate,  the  speech  of  Giles  being  the  particular  target  of  Fed 
eralists  like  Pickering  and  Lloyd.  Giles  was  forced  to  return 
to  the  subject  on  December  2. 

Some  new  light  is  thrown  by  this  speech  on  his  views  on 
the  important  question  of  the  embargo.  To  the  assertion  of  the 
Federalists  that  the  embargo  was  intended  to  be  permanent,  he 
gave  an  explicit  denial.  It  was  not  intended  to  be  permanent 
but  "let  us  wait  a  little  while,  before  we  make  ourselves  bloody 
in  the  wars  of  Europe.  Let  us  have  a  little  patience,  a  little 
self-denial."  Further  on,  however,  warming  up  to  the  British 
"extraordinary  project  of  recolonization,"  he  declared,  "I 
verily  believe  we  shall  again  have  to  fight  her  out  of  it ;  and  I  am 
inclined  to  think  that  now  is  as  good  a  time  for  the  contest 
as  we  can  expect  in  any  future  time."  One  of  the  British  con 
tentions  reechoed  by  Federalists  like  Pickering,  Giles  was  now 
able  completely  to  destroy;  that  was  the  assertion  that  the 
Orders  in  Council  had  no  influence  in  producing  the  embargo. 
Admitting  that  there  was  no  official  knowledge  of  the  orders  of 
November  11,  1807,  when  the  embargo  message  was  received 
by  Congress,  in  reference  to  the  House  debates  on  the  embargo 
bill  and  by  newspaper  reports  of  the  day,  he  proved,  that  the 
knowledge  of  the  British  orders  was  the  real  occasion  for  the 
adoption  of  the  embargo  policy.  In  addition  to  a  defence  of 
the  embargo,  it  was  the  duty  of  Giles  to  protect  the  President 
and  his  absent  friends  for  their  part  in  the  adoption  of  that 

367  Annals,  Tenth  Congress,  2nd  Session,  519-521. 
868  Annals,  855,  894,  895. 


CAMPAIGN  OF  1808:  REPEAL  OF  EMBARGO  135 

measure.  In  view  of  subsequent  events,  his  very  earnest  de 
fence  of  Mr.  Madison's  sincerity  and  of  Mr.  John  Quincy 
Adams's  "disinterestedness  and  purity"  of  motives,  reads  as  a 
touch  of  humor.  "As  to  his  [Adams's]  exemption  from  all 
views  of  personal  promotion  or  aggrandizement,"  Giles  con 
tinued,  "I  here  assert  that  fact,  upon  my  own  knowledge  and 
my  own  responsibility,  as  far  as  can  be  warranted  by  the  most 
explicit  and  unequivocal  assurances  from  the  gentleman  him 
self;  given,  too,  under  circumstances  which  render  their  sin 
cerity  unquestionable."  In  future  years,  this  testimony  to  Mr. 
Adams  was  to  return  to  harass  the  memory  of  the  enthusiastic 
Virginian,  and  he  was  to  apologize  to  the  world  for  every  word 
now  uttered. 

When  the  vote  was  taken  on  the  Hillhouse  resolution,  only 
six  voted  for  it  and  twenty-five  against  it,  and  the  Senate  had 
committed  itself  against  repeal.  The  House  was  to  do  so  on 
December  twentieth. 

Having  decided  that  a  repeal  of  the  embargo  was  not  ex 
pedient,  the  Senate,  under  Giles's  leadership,  proceeded  to  adopt 
measures  for  its  more  satisfactory  enforcement.  On  July  29, 
Gallatin  had  written  Jefferson  that  "a  restrictive  measure  of 
the  nature  of  the  embargo  applied  to  a  nation  under  such  cir 
cumstances  as  the  United  States  cannot  be  enforced  without 
the  assistance  of  means  as  strong  as  the  measure  itself,"  and 
had  then  given  his  ideas  of  the  means  necessary  to  that  end.389 
In  conference  with  the  Secretary  of  the  Treasury,370  Giles,  to 
whose  committee  had  been  committed  the  task  of  bringing  in 
the  necessary  bill,  prepared  a  measure  suited  for  that  purpose 
and  reported  it  to  the  Senate  on  December  8  and  12.  The 
bill  when  in  the  form  of  law  consisted  of  fourteen  sections.  The 
first  punished  with  forfeiture  of  the  cargo  and  ships  or  other 
conveyance  and  with  fine  and  forfeiture  of  the  value  of  the 
cargo,  any  person  loading  on  "ship,  vessel,  boat,  watercraft, 
cart,  wagon,  sled,  or  other  carriage  or  vehicle,  with 
or  without  wheels,  any  specie,  goods,  wares,  or  merchan- 

969  Writings  of  Gallatin,  i,  396. 

170  Gallatin  to  Giles,  Annals,  Tenth  Congress,  2nd  Session,  232-236. 
Adams,  Writings  of  Gallatin,  428. 


136  WILLIAM  BRANCH  GILES 

dise,  with  intent  to  export,  transport,  or  convey  the  same  with 
out  the  United  States ;"  the  second  required  a  permit  from  the 
revenue  officers  for  the  loading  of  vessels,  the  loading  to  take 
place  under  inspection,  and  a  bond  of  six  times  the  value  of 
the  vessel  and  cargo  to  be  given  as  a  pledge  that  the  vessel 
would  not  go  to  a  foreign  port  or  violate  other  provisions  of 
law.  By  the  next  section,  the  collector  was  given  power  to  re 
quire  the  discharge  of  a  suspicious  cargo.  Other  sections  pro 
vided  that  persons  in  whose  name  the  license  or  register  of  a 
vessel  read  were  to  be  considered  the  owners  until  these  papers 
were  changed;  where  vessels  were  required  to  give  bond  for 
the  relanding  of  their  cargo  in  the  harbors  of  the  United  States, 
"neither  capture,  distress,  or  other  accident  whatever,  shall  be 
pleaded  or  given  in  evidence  in  any  such  suit"  unless  it  were 
proved  that  the  capture  was  hostile  and  the  accident  not  due 
to  negligence;  collectors  were  authorized  to  seize  articles  which 
in  their  judgement  were  intended  for  exportation.  They  were 
to  act  under  instructions  of  the  President,  these  instructions 
were  to  be  evidence  of  justification  in  suits  against  the  collec 
tors,  and  the  suits  themselves  were  to  be  in  the  United  States 
courts.  For  the  enforcement  of  the  provisions  of  the  act,  the 
President  might  employ  the  land  and  naval  forces  of  the  United 
States  and  call  out  the  militia;  he  was  authorized  further  to 
hire,  arm,  and  employ  thirty  vessels  and  the  necessary  seamen 
for  immediate  service  in  enforcing  the  laws  on  the  seacoast. 

There  would  be  no  doubt  that  if  this  law  was  necessary,  the 
restrictive  policy  could  not  be  "carried  into  effect  without  im 
posing  serious  inconveniences  ;"3  ri  nor  that  Giles  was,  as  he  ex 
pressed  himself  to  Josiah  Quincy  in  November,  "in  favor  of 
putting  to  trial  what  the  strength  of  the  Federal  arm  was,  and 
if  it  were  not  sufficient  to  enforce  its  own  laws,  it  might  be  as 
well  known  now  as  hereafter."3  It  could  hardly  be  wondered 
at  that  the  Federalist  members,  representing  those  citizens 
whose  conduct  had  given  rise  to  the  presentation  of  this  bill 
should  resist  its  passage.  Goodrich  of  New  Hampshire  opened 

671  Letter  of  Gallatin  to  Giles,  above  cited. 
872  Life  of  Josiah  Quincy  by  his  son,  143. 


CAMPAIGN  OF  1808:  REPEAL  or  EMBARGO  137 

fire  against  it  on  December  17,  to  be  followed  by  Lloyd  of 
Massachusetts.  The  excessive  bonds  required,  the  discretion 
allowed  the  President  in  the  issuance  of  instructions,  the  power 
of  seizure  given  the  collectors,  the  provisions  as  to  ownership 
of  the  vessels,  the  power  allowed  the  deputies  of  the  President 
to  call  out  the  military  force,  were  all  described  as  dangerous, 
alarming,  and  unconstitutional. 

On  the  twenty-first  Giles  came  to  the  defence  of  his  measure. 
The  various  objections  to  the  bill  were  taken  up  and  disposed 
of.  It  was  charged  that  excessive  bonds  were  required;  the 
answer  was,  no  smaller  would  be  effective.  Many  persons  of 
small  means  could  not  secure  them  and  would  be  driven  from 
business;  this  objection  was  exaggerated.  "Are  these  appre 
hended  inconveniences,"  he  asks,  "of  such  a  nature  as  to  render 
it  necessary  to  abandon  a  great  national  object,  for  the  ac 
commodation  of  a  few  individuals  who  are  affected  by  them?"  It 
was  objected  that  this  bill  contains  new  and  unconstitutional 
features ;  fco  this  it  was  replied  by  Giles  with  elaborate  detail 
that  no  principles  in  it  were  unsupported  by  the  precedent  of 
former  or  present  laws.  Mr.  Goodrich  said  this  law  established 
a  "military  despotism."  This  was  not  true  in  the  first  place, 
said  Giles,  and  in  the  second,  "if  we  are  at  all  at  peace  .... 
it  is  a  peace  like  war,  and,  in  my  judgment,  would  authorize 
the  adoption  of  any  measure,  which  would  be  justified  in 
a  state  of  war."  It  was  actually  claimed  that  the  embargo 
laws  were  unconstitutional.  After  the  action  of  1794,  when  all 
agreed  upon  an  embargo,  "I  really  should  have  been  surprised, 
in  entering  a  boarding  school,  to  have  heard  that  question 
propounded,  merely  to  try  the  skill,  or  whet  the  ingenuity  of 
sprouting  boys,  or  lisping  misses." 

Were  the  embargo  laws  violated?  What  was  the  cause? 
British  influence,  answered  Giles.  The  British,  at  the  beginning, 
offered  our  citizens  protection  if  they  would  violate  the  law; 
and  it  was  well  known  that  the  British  government  had  agents 
in  most  of  our  seaport  towns  for  purchasing  supplies  for 
its  fleets  and  armies.  There  were  also,  he  charged,  British  mer 
chants,  and  British  capital  connected  with  unprincipled  Ameri- 


138  WILLIAM  BRANCH  GILES 

cans  engaged  in  the  violation  of  these  laws.  Unprincipled 
Americans  had  been  invited,  through  these  means,  "to  engage 
in  this  scandalous  traffic."  Pickering  and  Hillhouse  made  an 
swer;  Pope  spoke  in  favor  of  the  bill  which  passed  the  Senate 
December  twenty-first  by  a  vote  of  twenty  to  seven.373  A 
little  after  daylight  on  January  5,  the  House  passed  it  with 
amendments,  71  yeas,  32  nays.374  The  President  gave  his  ap 
proval,  January  9,  and  one  of  the  most  stringent  measures 
ever  adopted  in  time  of  peace  became  the  law  of  the  land. 

No  time  was  lost  by  the  Federalists  in  expressing  their  alarm 
and  indignation.  Town  meetings  in  Massachusetts  adopted 
threatening  remonstrances  and  secession  was  whispered  about. 
Committees  of  safety  were  appointed.  Citizens  announced  their 
determination  not  to  assist  in  the  execution  of  the  enforcement 
act  and  labelled  those  who  should  do  so  "as  enemies  to  the 
Constitution  of  the  United  States  and  of  this  State,  and  hostile 
to  the  liberties  of  this  people."3  5  Although  the  Lieutenant  Gov 
ernor,  Levi  Lincoln,  now  filling  the  place  of  Sullivan,  deceased, 
condemned  the  action  of  the  town  meetings,  both  Senate  and 
House  of  the  General  Court  adopted  addresses  in  answer  to 
the  Governor  declaring  that  Massachusetts  "will  not  willingly 
become  the  victims  of  fruitless  experiment."  Resolutions  fol 
lowed  condemning  the  "unjust,  oppressive,  and  unconstitu 
tional"  act.3Tt  To  the  Legislature  of  Delaware,  it  appeared  to 
be  "an  invasion  of  the  liberty  of  the  people,  and  the  constitution 
al  sovereignty  of  the  State  governments."377 

Connecticut  and  Rhode  Island,  following  the  lead  of  Massa 
chusetts,  pelted  the  embargo,  and  particularly  the  act  of  Jan 
uary  9,  with  all  imaginable  epithets,  and  agreed  to  cooperate 
with  Massachusetts  and  other  states  of  their  way  of  thinking, 
in  restoring  commerce,  relieving  the  country  of  the  present  po 
litical  evils,  and  preserving  the  Union.378  Loyal  Virginia  sent 

878  Annals,   Tenth  Congress,  3rd  Session,  298. 

874  Annals,  1024. 

875  Adams,  U.  S.,  iv,  13,  et  seq. 

876  Ames,  State  Documents  on  Federal  Relations,  26,  et  seq. 

877  Ibid,  37. 

878  Ibid,  42,  44. 


CAMPAIGN  OF  1808:  REPEAL  OF  EMBARGO  139 

up  word  that  the  course  of  the  administration  was  entirely 
proper.  The  war  would  have  been  justifiable  under  the  worries 
and  sufferings  of  our  nation;  yet  the  President  and  Congress 
had  adopted  "the  only  measure  of  relief,  compatible  with  our 
power,  and  at  the  same  time  with  our  honor."  But  they  de 
fend  the  embargo  not  because  they  fear  the  other  alternative 
of  war,  for  they  resolve  "that  we  will  stand  by  the  government 
of  our  country;  and  that  we  will  support  them  with  the  last 
cent  of  our  treasure,  and  the  last  drop  of  our  blood,  in  every 
measure,  either  of  defence  or  offense,  which  they  may  deem  ex 
pedient,  to  vindicate  our  injured  honor  and  our  violated 
rights."379  The  tone  of  these  resolutions,  though  loyal  to  the 
last  word,  is  yet  expressive  of  the  feeling  that  a  more  vigor 
ous  policy  than  embargo  would  be  welcome.  Giles  had  inti 
mated  the  same  suspicion — indeed  a  war  party  had  been  formed 
which  was  to  fight  for  more  energetic  measures  until  war  was 
declared.  Republican  leaders  in  Virginia,  like  W.  C.  Nicholas, 
Spencer  Roane,  and  Thomas  Ritchie  could  not  restrain  their 
impatience.380 

Congress  was,  of  course,  not  blind  to  the  sentiment  of  the 
country.  The  resolutions  of  New  England  daily  found  their 
way  to  that  body,  and  from  other  sources  the  seriousness  of  the 
crisis  in  that  quarter  was  fully  made  known.  It  was  apparent 
that  a  retention  of  the  embargo  was  perilous.  John  Quincy 
Adams  kept  his  friend  Giles  and  others  informed  of  the  sit 
uation.381  Joseph  Story  came  the  latter  part  of  December  to 
take  the  place  of  Jacob  Crowninshield,  deceased,882  and,  though 
arriving  before  the  passage  of  the  Enforcement  Act,  was  fully 
aware  of  the  situation.  Story  stayed  long  enough  to  get  hold 
of  Ezekiel  Bacon,  who,  becoming  panic-stricken,  "communicated 
his  panic  to  his  colleagues  &  they  to  the  majority  of  the  sound 
members  of  Congress."383  By  the  beginning  of  February,  Jef- 

379  Acts  of  1808-1809.     Feb.  7,  1809,  99-104. 
880  See  below— Chapter  XT. 
mNiles   Register,  35,  190-192. 
883  Annals,  898. 

"^Jefferson  to  Dearborn,  July  16,  1810.  Writings  of  Jefferson  (Ford), 
ix,  277. 


140  WILLIAM  BRANCH  GILES 

ferson  reported  that  "a  sudden  and  unaccountable  revolution 
of  opinion"3  *  had  shown  itself,  chiefly  among  the  New  York 
and  New  England  members.  And  we  may  readily  believe  this 
had  occurred  despite  the  "reiterated  attempts"  made  by  Jeffer 
son  through  a  committee  of  his  particular  adherents,  Giles, 
Nicholas,  Campbell,  to  detach  them  from  their  opposition.385 
Unwilling  to  wait  until  the  extra  session  to  be  called  May  22, 
efforts  were  now  made  to  secure  an  early  date  for  the  repeal 
of  the  offensive  laws.  Nicholas,  who  had  ceased  to  be  a  be 
liever  in  the  efficiency  of  the  embargo,  offered  on  January  24, 
a  resolution  that  the  United  States  ought  not  to  delay  beyond 
a  blank  date  to  repeal  the  embargo  laws  and  to  adopt  measures 
of  defence.38*  Some  proposed  June  1,  some  March  4,  some 
February  15.  June  1,  the  date  acceptable  to  the  administra 
tion  leaders  failed  of  adoption;387  March  4  was  agreed  upon.388 
The  House  proceeded  to  debate  the  measure  suggested  to  take 
the  place  of  the  embargo,  and  despite  the  agitation  of  the  war- 
men  like  Nicholas,  showed,  as  a  body,  little  stomach  for  harsh 
measures. 

Something  had  to  be  done,  or  the  Republicans  would  become 
utterly  disorganized.  Caucuses  were  held,  Giles  used  his  en 
ergies  and  something  was  saved  from  the  wreck.  Repeal  of  the 
embargo  to  go  into  effect  on  March  4,  and  nonintercourse  with 
Great  Britain  was  to  be  the  programme.  On  February  8,  he 
introduced  in  the  Senate  a  resolution  to  the  foregoing  effect 
accompanied  by  another  providing  that  all  foreign  armed  ships 
should  be  excluded  from  the  waters  of  the  United  States.  Less 
than  two  months  after  this  vigorous  defence  of  the  embargo 
and  his  bill  for  the  enforcement,  he  rose389  to  justify  the 
measures  now  proposed.  However,  the  speech  delivered  is  not 
so  much  an  argument  for  repeal  or  for  nonintercourse,  as  for 

884  Jefferson   to  Thomas   Mann    Randolph,    Feb.    7,    1809.    Writings    of 
Jefferson  (Ford),  ix,  244. 

885  Life  and  Letters  of  Joseph  Story,  i,  185.     Story  admits  that  he  did 
all  he  could  to  accomplish  the  repeal,  but  gives  the  chief  credit  to  Bacon. 

886  Annals,  Tenth  Cong.,  2nd  Sess.,  1172. 

887  Ibid,  1328  (Feb.  2). 

888  Ibid,  1350  (Feb.  3). 

889  Feb.  13,  1809.    Annals,  1232. 


CAMPAIGN  OF  1808:    REPEAL  or  EMBARGO 

war.  In  this  way,  he  saved  the  appearance  of  consistency. 
The  resolution  which  he  now  presented  was,  he  said,  dictated 
by  a  spirit  of  conciliation;  it  was  not  that  of  choice;  "nor  the 
one  by  which  I  could  wish  that  my  responsibility  could  be 
tested."  In  his  opinion,  war  was  amply  justified  by  the  exist 
ing  crisis.  "If  the  public  sentiment  could  be  brought  to  sup 
port  them,  wisdom  would  dictate  the  combined  measures  of  em 
bargo,  nonintercourse,  and  war.  .  .  .  The  time  is  not 
past,  but  is  fast  approaching,  when  the  whole  energy  of  the 
nation  must  be  called  forth  to  save  what  we  have  left  of 
our  honor,  independence,  and  dearest  interests."  Embargo 
would  deprive  our  enemy  of  the  products,  nonintercourse 
"would  deprive  him  of  our  market  for  his  surplus  manufac 
tures;"  "war  could  be  made  to  retort  upon  him  some  of  the 
evils  of  his  own  injustice."  Giles  would  meet  the  enemy  with 
armed  ships  on  the  ocean,  and  would  seize  his  colonial  posses 
sions  upon  this  continent.  If  the  embargo  had  to  go — and  he 
had  never  relied  upon  its  coercive  effects  as  much  as  have  some 
others — he  would  substitute  letters  of  marque  and  reprisal, 
and  the  invasion  of  Canada.  The  House  of  Representatives 
had  rejected390  that  plan  of  operation  and  nonintercourse  was 
the  next  best  for  adoption.  But  must  we  continue  to  bear 
insult?  Must  we  wait  for  a  greater  accumulation  of  injuries? 
This  was  the  burden  of  the  speech  and  the  repeal  and  noninter 
course  were  dragged  in  incidentally  and  unwillingly.  Eulogiz 
ing  and  defending  the  retiring  President  against  all  criticism, 
he  did  not  himself  forbear  to  add  that  Thomas  Jefferson  was 
not,  as  charged,  seeking  to  involve  us  in  war ;  he  was  instead  a 
"lover  of  peace,  and  I  fear  that  his  amiable  and  anxious  solici 
tude  to  preserve  it,  may  have  some  tendency  toward  rendering 
war  indispensable." 

One  of  the  most  interesting  portions  of  this  speech  is  the 
eulogy  of  commerce  which  Giles  found  it  desirable  to  deliver. 
Although  in  later  days  he  became  suspicious  of  every  occupa 
tion  but  agriculture,  now  he  thought  commerce  affected  every 
interest;  it  provided  the  income  of  the  government,  it  must  be 

190  The   Nicholas  resolution  defeated  by  the   House. 


142  WILLIAM  BRANCH  GILES 

protected.  Former  prejudice  of  the  speaker  notwithstanding, 
the  United  States  must  have  a  navy  to  protect  its  commerce. 
And  it  was  as  certain,  he  felt,  as  any  effect  produced  by  ir 
resistible  causes  that  the  prejudice  against  commerce  would 
pass  away.  The  southern  people  were  not,  as  represented,  hos 
tile  to  their  eastern  fellow  citizens.  The  interests  of  the  two 
sections  were  mutual  and  reciprocal,  and  it  was  to  be  hoped  that 
their  unfortunate  difference  of  opinion  might  "eventuate  in  re 
newed  acts  of  reciprocal  kindness,  confidence,  and  friendship." 

It  was  such  deliverances  as  this,  no  doubt,  which  brought 
from  Joseph  Story  the  opinion:  "the  belief  that  all  members 
reflect  the  will  of  the  administration  is  all  of  the  same  stuff 
as  the  stories  about  hatred  to  commerce  by  Southern  gentlemen. 
On  this  subject  I  find  them  liberal.  Mr.  Giles,  who  is  a  host, 
is  one  of  the  warmest  advocates  for  commerce,  that  I  have 
ever  known.  He  is  a  great  friend  to  the  Eastern  States,  and 
said  to  me  the  other  day,  that  all  the  injustice  of  Great  Britain 
and  France  would  not  affect  his  mind  half  as  much  as  the  dis 
affection  of  the  Eastern  States."391 

The  Federalist  position  on  the  measures  necessary  to  be 
adopted  may  be  found  in  the  speech  of  Bayard  in  answer  to 
Giles:  "Place  England  and  France  upon  the  same  footing,  by 
repealing  the  nonimportation  act,  rescinding  the  proclamation, 
and  repealing  the  embargo."  "Insist  upon  adequate  repara 
tion  for  the  affair  of  the  Chesapeake."  Sign  any  treaty  as 
good  as  those  rejected.  "Agree  to  resist  the  execution  of  the 
Berlin  decree,  and  if  she,  Great  Britain,  persists  in  her  Orders 
of  Council,  declare  war  against  her."3  In  other  words,  while 
pointing  out  the  failure  of  the  administration,  the  nonexecution 
of  the  embargo,  the  dangers  to  be  expected  in  New  England, 
the  opposition  could  offer  nothing  except  submission.  .  . 
Give  up  our  contentions  as  to  impressment,  admit  that  we 
have  been  wholly  wrong  in  most  everything,  make  war 
on  France,  ally  ourselves  with  Great  Britain,  and  if  she 
then  does  not  at  least  treat  us  as  neutrals,  make  war  on  her. 

881  Life  and  Letters  of  Joseph  Story,  I,  176. 

892  Annals  of  Congress,  10th  Cong.,  2nd  Sess.,  408. 


CAMPAIGN  or  1808 :  REPEAL  OF  EMBARGO  143 

If  the  administration  had  played  a  weak,  vacillating  part,  the 
Federalists,  one  might  fairly  conclude,  gave  no  indication  that 
their  policy,  if  they  had  been  in  power,  would  have  been  other 
than  an  abject  surrender  to  the  British  navy. 

The  resolution  was  agreed  upon,  immediately  after  Bayard's 
speech,  and  a  bill  to  carry  it  into  effect  received  the  favorable 
vote  of  the  Senate  on  February  21,  passed  the  House  on 
February  27,  and  became  law  March  1.  The  bill  as  passed  by 
the  Senate,  despite  Giles's  protests  against  the  mildness  of  the 
resolutions  on  which  it  had  been  based,  nevertheless  gave  au 
thority  to  the  President,  in  case  either  nation  withdrew  its 
orders  and  the  other  refused,  to  issue  letters  of  marque  and 
reprisal  against  the  latter.  The  House  had  already  taken 
its  stand  against  positive  measures  and  struck  out  this  pro 
vision.  The  act  forbade,  after  May  20,  ships  under  the  flag 
of  France  and  Great  Britain  to  enter  our  harbors  and  prohib 
ited  all  importation  of  goods  produced  by  these  nations  or  their 
colonies.  If  either  Great  Britain  or  France  should  revoke  her 
orders  or  edicts,  the  President  was  authorized  to  renew  our  trade 
with  that  nation  so  doing.  After  March  15,  all  embargo  acts, 
except  as  they  related  to  Great  Britain  and  France,  were  to  be 
repealed,  though  ships  were  still  to  give  bond  that  they  would 
not  proceed  to  the  ports  of  Great  Britain  and  France.  The  em 
bargo  as  a  general  policy  was  to  be  no  more.  It  had  occupied 
the  area  of  debate  long  enough.  For  it,  though  he  afterwards 
declared  it  was  never  a  favorite  measure  of  his,  Giles  had  skill 
fully  pleaded.  He  had  done  what  he  could  to  preserve  it  as 
long  as  possible,  though  he  persisted  in  disclaiming  any  desire 
to  make  it  permanent.  He  had  gone  to  the  verge  of  the  Con 
stitution  in  his  endeavor  to  assist  the  administration  in  its 
defence.  And  when  their  policy  had  been  doomed,  he  had  saved 
what  he  could  of  it,  as  a  substitute  for  what  he  really  desired 
— war. 

A  confident  opinion  on  the  questions  at  issue  in  regard  to 
the  expediency  and  effect  of  this  policy  with  which  Giles,  some 
what  against  his  inclination,  was  so  closely  identified,  would  be 
extremely  rash.  More  serious  or  more  impartial  investigations 


144  WILLIAM  BRANCH  GILES 

of  the  entire  subject  must  be  made  before  judgment  can  be 
given  with  assurance.  Some  things  seem  to  stand  out  as  worthy 
of  acceptance.  The  choice  of  evils  before  the  administration 
was  hazardous.  The  embargo  policy  was  indeed  an  experiment 
as  any  other  policy  would  have  been,  and  an  experiment  less 
dangerous  than  war.  It  did  preserve  the  peace,  and  if  it  pro 
duced  evils,  it  is  not  certain  that  it  did  not  preserve  us  from 
evils  worse  than  the  embargo  itself.  Those  evils  were  no  doubt 
grossly  exaggerated  by  partisans  of  that  day  and  have  been 
grossly  exaggerated  by  partisan  writers  since  that  time.  The 
source  from  which  the  laws  proceeded  have  placed  the  dis 
cussion  of  the  incident  in  the  midst  of  the  conflict  of  argument 
and  passion  between  the  two  sections  of  country;  and,  al 
though  it  may  properly  lie  there,  argument  has  been  winged 
more  with  prejudice  than  with  fact.  Southern  writers  have 
gloated  in  the  disloyalty  of  the  New  Englanders  as  justification 
for  their  own  later  acts,  forgetful  that  the  South,  too,  although 
supporting  the  policy  of  embargo,  by  resolution  and  speech, 
violated  it  when  she  could;393  northern  writers  have  been  glad 
to  point  out  that,  in  the  irony  of  fate,  the  South,  after  all,  re 
ceived  in  her  own  impoverishment,  her  just  punishment  for  the 
iniquitous  system  forced  on  the  North.  The  South  did  suffer, 
and  suffered  severely.  For  instance,  the  exportation  of  cotton 
was  cut  down  from  a  total  of  $14,232,000  for  the  year  1806- 
1807,  to  a  total  of  $2,221,000.  The  exportation  of  tobacco 
fell  from  $5,476,000  to  $838,000.394  Virginia  suffered  terribly. 

893  See  Annals,  Tenth  Cong.,  2nd  Sess.,  286  and  1230.  Some  incidents 
given  by  Hillhouse  and  John  Randolph.  See  Report  of  John  Howe  to 
Provost,  Aug.  5,  1808,  in  which  a  case  of  evasion  of  the  law  by  a  Norfolk 
captain  is  given.  Am.  Hist.  Review,  vol.  17,  99.  Ramsay,  History  of 
South  Carolina,  441-442. 

394Seybert,  Statistical  Annals,  147.  In  addition  to  the  facts  cited 
here  see,  for  instance,  report  of  John  Howe — Am.  Hist.  Review,  17;  90, 
98,  99.  Howe  says  southern  cotton  fell  from  24  cents  to  10  after  the 
embargo;  "it  would  take  a  great  length  of  time  to  collect  seamen  to  man 
the  vessels  which  are  lying  ruining  by  the  wharves  of  Alexandria,"  etc. 
Ramsay,  in  The  History  of  South  Carolina,  441-442,  says  the  sufferings 
were  "immense" — the  price  of  commodities  fell  by  one-half.  Branch  Hist. 
Papers,  June  1908,  307.  Speeches  in  Congress— 10th,  llth,  and  12th 
Congresses. 


CAMPAIGN  OF  1808:  REPEAL  OF  EMBARGO  145 

Her  tobacco,  her  wheat,  her  flour,  her  Indian  corn,  sought  in 
vain  for  a  market.  Her  total  exports  declined  suddenly  to  one- 
ninth  of  the  value  which  they  had  had  in  the  year  preceding 
the  imposition  of  the  embargo.  When  this  blight  was  removed, 
although  the  nonintercourse  with  Great  Britain  took  its  place, 
the  trade  revived.  John  Randolph,  in  1808,  told  Josiah  Quincy 
the  embargo  was  ruining  Virginia — particularly  his  county 
of  Charlotte.  In  this  county,  the  justices  of  the  county^  courts 
kept  open  the  courts.  In  other  parts  of  the  state — for  in 
stance,  Albemarle — the  courts  had  been  closed.  The  immediate 
pressure  of  the  embargo  had,  therefore,  been  checked  and  had 
indeed  gained  popularity  "with  all  those  who,  being  needy  or 
embarrassed,  were  willing  to  find  an  excuse  for  delinquency."3 
But  the  South,  though  crippled,  was  not  desolate;  her  cotton 
and  tobacco  did  not  necessarily  rot.  Her  society  was  suf 
ficient  unto  itself  for  its  ordinary  needs.  The  decline  of  the 
South  did  not  date  from  the  embargo.  Virginia,  for  instance, 
had  never  recovered  from  the  effects  of  the  Revolution.39(  It 
is  also  impossible  to  estimate  the  loss  occasioned  by  British 
and  French  restrictions.  Nor  was  the  injury  done  by  the  re 
strictive  policy  comparable  to  the  economic  distress  occas 
ioned  by  the  war  when  it  did  come.897 

A  wholesale  condemnation  of  the  embargo  of  1807-1809  seems 
hardly  justified  by  the  conditions  of  the  times;  but  that  too 
firm  a  reliance  was  placed  upon  it,  that  insufficient  preparation 
was  made  for  the  war  for  which  it  should  have  been  only  the 
preparation,  is  no  doubt  true.  But  that  the  Federalist  conduct, 
argument,  and  desires  were  less  American  and  less  enviable  than 
those  of  the  party  in  power  would  seem  also  to  admit  of  little 
dispute. 

895  Report  of  a  conversation,  Nov.  16,  1808,  between  Quincy  and  Ran 
dolph.  Life  of  Quincy,  143. 

896Grigsby  says  the  period  of  1783-1814  was  a  period  of  poverty  in  the 
tobacco  country.  See  Discourse  on  the  Presidents  and  Trustees  of  Hamp- 
den-Sidney  College,  45. 

897  For  instance,  the  total  exports  of  Virginia  in  1813-14  were  $17,581 
in  value  against  $6,676,976  the  year  after  the  war  ended  and  $8,112,060 
in  1815-1816.  Seybert,  143. 


CHAPTER  X 
THE  SMITH  FACTION 

Jefferson  remained  in  Washington  long  enough  to  see  his 
friend  and  candidate  inaugurated  President  and  then  returned 
amid  the  cursings  of  New  England  and  the  blessings  of  his  own 
people.  An  address  written  in  the  apt  and  fluent  language  of 
William  Wirt  extended  to  him  the  thanks  of  Virginia  for  "the 
model  of  an  administration,  conducted  on  the  purest  prin 
ciples  of  Republicanism ;  for  pomp  and  state  laid  aside ;  pat 
ronage  discarded;  internal  taxes  abolished;  a  host  of  super 
fluous  offices  disbanded;  the  monarchic  maxim  'That  a  national 
debt  is  a  national  blessing,'  renounced;  .  .  .  more  than 
thirty-three  millions  of  our  debt  discharged"  and  for  other 
virtues  exhibited  in  his  public  service.  No  evidence  of  failure 
here;  Virginia  was  "sound;"3  Virginia  was  loyal  to  her 
greatest  living  son.  Would  she  be  loyal  to  his  successor? 

There  were,  however,  some  of  the  sons  of  Virginia  who  had 
deserted  even  the  chief  of  the  Republican  armies ;  others  who  had 
clung  to  him  desired,  like  John  Randolph,  to  play  an  inde 
pendent  role,  refusing  to  obey  the  word  of  the  new  Pharaoh. 
Among  these  independent  spirits,  William  B.  Giles  was  to  be 
the  most  prominent.  To  this  pugilistic,  though  capable  and 
patriotic,  Republican  the  eight  years  of  Jefferson's  admin 
istration  were  an  oasis  of  constructive  statesmanship  in  a 
vast  wilderness  of  opposition  and  criticism.  The  Senate 
leader  for  the  two  administrations  of  Thomas  Jefferson  had 
been  the  bitterest  opponent  of  the  preceding  three,  and  was 
to  be  an  enemy  to  five  that  were  to  come  after.  The  char 
acter  of  the  man  was  such  that  he  could  not  long  remain 
within  political  traces, — only  the  unexampled  leadership  and 
tact  of  the  sage  of  Monticello  could  have  commanded  his 
loyal  support  for  eight  years;  and  even  with  Jefferson,  there 
were,  during  the  last  few  months  of  the  second  term,  signs 
of  a  possible  break.  One  could  not  expect  Giles,  there 
fore,  to  go  eight  years  more  in  regular  channels,  especially  if 

898  Acts  of  the  General   Assembly,   1808-1809,  98,  99. 


THE  SMITH  FACTION  147 

other  influences  should  add  themselves  to  the  natural  inclination 
of  his  character. 

Signs  were  unfavorable  for  the  success  of  Madison's  adminis 
tration.  Federalists  were  certainly  increasing  in  strength  and 
Republicans  had  begun  to  fall  into  disorganization.  To  add 
to  the  inevitable  troubles  proceeding  from  general  and  natural 
causes,  there  were  already  signs  of  a  feud.  In  January  of 
1809,  sixteen  Republican  Senators  had  united  with  the  Federal 
ists  in  forcing  through  the  Senate  a  bill  ordering  every  armed 
vessel  belonging  to  the  government  into  immediate  active  service. 
Giles,  whose  expressions  in  favor  of  a  navy  for  the  protection 
of  commerce  we  have  seen,  was  one  of  the  sixteen.39*  The  House 
had  forced  the  Senate  to  retreat  from  this  position,  but  a  vote 
taken  on  January  10  had  shown  a  surprising  number  of  sup 
porters  for  the  Senate  programme.  The  ostensible,  if  not  the 
actual  purpose,  as  it  well  might  have  been,  was  the  desire  of 
many  members  for  stronger  measures  than  were  being  pursued 
—to  force  the  hands  of  the  lovers  of  peace  and  compel  a  prep 
aration  for  war.400  The  Secretary  of  the  Treasury,  seeing  no 
good  in  this  sudden  display  of  Republican  love  for  a  navy,  re 
garded  it  only  as  an  effort  to  impoverish  the  Treasury,  by 
squandering  six  million  dollars  on  a  useless  policy  and  of  bring 
ing  him  in  this  way  into  disrepute.403 

Personal  feelings  to  an  extent  were  certainly  back  of  the 
measures  proposed  by  Giles  and  Nicholas  and  their  Federalist 
friends.  The  Vice-president,  Clinton,  and  his  friends,  could 
not  so  easily  lay  aside  the  ill  feelings  arising  from  the  defeat 
administered  by  Madison;  and  he  and  his  destined  chief  coun 
sellor  might  expect  no  gratuitous  favors.  Between  Gallatin 
and  the  Smiths,  Robert,  Secretary  of  the  Navy,  and  Samuel, 
his  brother,  Senator  from  Maryland,  there  existed  an  ancient 
enmity  that  time  did  not  heal  and  circumstances  were  to  em 
bitter.  Wilson  Gary  Nicholas  was  related  by  marriage  to  the 
Smiths;  and  William  B.  Giles  was  a  bosom  friend  of  Nicholas 
as  well  as  a  long-time  close  associate  with  Samuel  Smith.  Such 

899  Annals,   Tenth   Cong.,  2nd   Sess.,  305. 

400  Annals,   1185. 

401  See  Adams'  Gallatin,  387,  for  Gallatin's  analysis  of  the  vote. 


148  WILLIAM  BRANCH  GILES 

personal  elements  have  large  influence,  possibly  at  times  the  de 
termining  influence,  on  the  alignment  of  individuals  and  even  on 
the  adoption  or  rejection  of  public  measures. 

Coining  disasters  cast  their  shadows  forward;  the  vote  on 
the  navy  bill  was  the  shadow,  the  appointment  of  Robert  Smith, 
Secretary  of  State,  the  disaster.  The  selection  of  Albert  Gal- 
latin  for  the  position  of  Secretary  of  State  was  a  natural 
reward  for  his  capable  services  to  the  party,  to  the  previous 
administration,  and  to  the  country.  But  it  was  not  to  be. 
The  Smiths  and  Giles  had  determined  otherwise,  and  they  were 
the  "ruling  party."  Although  called  by  Gallatin  the  "file 
leader"4  2  of  the  discontents  in  the  House,  Nicholas  did  not 
unite  with  them  in  this  endeavor.  Writing  in  1811,  Nicholas 
says,  "from  the  first  Mr.  Giles  disclosed  his  determination  to 
vote  against  Gallatin,  I  repeatedly  urged  and  entreated  him 
not  to  do  it;  for  several  days  it  was  a  subject  of  discussion  be 
tween  us.  There  was  no  way  which  our  long  and  intimate 
friendship  would  justify,  consistent  with  my  respect  for  him, 
in  which  I  did  not  assail  him.  To  all  my  arguments  he  re 
plied  that  his  duty  to  his  country  was  to  him  paramount  to  any 
other  consideration,  and  that  he  could  not  justify  to  himself 
permitting  Gallatin  to  be  Secretary  of  State  if  his  vote  would 
prevent  it."*03  Nicholas,  understanding  that  the  question  hav 
ing  the  most  weight  with  Giles  was  that  Gallatin  was  a  foreigner, 
thought  that  it  was  too  late  to  make  that  objection.404  Next 
to  Gallatin,  the  person  most  deserving  by  party  service,  both  in 
the  Senate  and  in  the  presidential  canvass,  was  Giles  himself. 
No  one  denied,  not  even  his  enemies,  that  he  had  served  the 
party  long  and  well,  and  for  his  services  he  had  as  yet  received 
no  reward  except  his  senatorial  seat.  That  he  should  not  wish 
the  honor  of  further  advancement,  would  be  to  expect  of  him 
more  than  human  self-abasement — surely  not  one  of  his  quali 
ties.  But  the  statement  that  by  temperament  he  was  not  en 
tirely  suited  for  administrative  position  of  great  delicacy  would 
meet  universal  acceptance.  The  endeavor  to  picture  Giles 

403  Adams'  Gallatin,  387. 
408  Ibid,  388-9. 

404  That  was  the  reason  given  by  Samuel  Smith. 


THE  SMITH  FACTION  149 

writing  cool,  diplomatic  notes,  inflicting  the  truth  but  avoiding 
imprudence  or  angry  expression,  is  all  that  is  necessary  to  settle 
the  question  of  his  choice  for  such  a  responsible  and  delicate 
position  as  that  of  Secretary  of  State.  Besides,  take  away  his 
readiness  and  eloquence,  and  who  would  there  be  to  uphold  the 
true  cause  in  the  arena  of  senatorial  discussion?  Only  a  news 
paper  mention  or  two  and  Giles's  name  disappears  from  the  list 
of  probable  cabinet  appointees.405  Except  Gallatin,  no  other 
man  seemed  available.  Giles  and  the  Smiths,  however,  were 
determined  to  defeat  Gallatin  and  to  secure  recognition  in  the 
new  cabinet  as  the  price  of  their  support.406  If  they  could  not 
secure  the  office  of  Secretary  of  State,  they  would  take  that  of 
Treasury,  and  they  would  vote  for  and  accept  Gallatin  for  the 
office  of  State  if  Madison  would  give  one  of  them  the  Treasury 
portfolio.  Madison  agreed  to  make  Robert  Smith  Secretary 
of  Treasury,  and  all  went  well  until  Gallatin  refused  to  be  a 
party  to  that  arrangement,  and  suggested  Smith  for  the  higher 
office.  And  so  the  matter  stood,  Giles  and  Samuel  Smith  and 
their  friends  accepted  Gallatin,  Madison  appointed  Smith  with 
the  secret  knowledge  that  he  himself  would  do  the  work,  and  the 
factional  difference  calmed  down. 

Congress  was  called  in  extra  session  for  the  fourth  of  March 
in  order  that  the  leading  appointments  of  the  President  might 
be  ratified.  Those  for  Secretary  of  State  and  Treasury  we  have 
seen.  Smith's  place  at  the  head  of  the  navy  department  was  to 
be  taken  by  Paul  Hamilton  of  South  Carolina;  the  Secretary 
of  War  was  to  be  William  Eustis,  patriotic  but  old  and  in 
capable  of  filling  the  position  to  which  he  was  assigned.  The 
Postmaster-General,  Gideon  Granger,  and  the  Attorney  Gen 
eral,  Caesar  A.  Rodney,  came  over  from  the  cabinet  of  Jefferson. 
The  one  man  of  capacity  was  the  foreigner  whom  Giles  hated, 
and  that  man's  superiority  and  subsequent  leadership  in  the 
cabinet  was  suggestive  of  further  danger.  One  appointment 
of  the  President  failed  of  confirmation  at  this  session,  that  of 
John  Quincy  Adams  to  the  court  of  Russia.  Giles,  probably 

405  Enquirer,  January  19  and  Feb.  3,  1809. 

406  Randall  says  Giles  presented  to  Madison  seventeen  objections  to  Gal- 
latin's  appointment,  III,  357,  note. 


150  WILLIAM  BRANCH  GILES 

on  ground  of  personal  friendship  to  the  appointee,  as  well  as 
in  obedience  to  the  implied  terms  of  the  contract  with  the  Presi 
dent,  voted  in  favor  of  Adams. 

The  first  session  of  the  eleventh  Congress  was,  according  to 
agreement,  to  meet  on  May  22,  1809.  Before  that  day  could 
arrive,  the  foreign  situation  had  changed  much  for  the  better. 
David  M.  Erskine  had  represented  the  English  government  in 
Washington  since  the  recall  of  Anthony  Merry  in  1806;  believ 
ing  little  in  the  Tory  government  of  Canning  and  kindly  dis 
posed  to  our  country  because  of  his  marriage  to  an  American 
lady,  he  carried  his  good  intentions  too  far,  to  the  extent,  in 
deed,  of  producing  his  own  recall  and  the  further  complication 
of  Anglo-American  relations.  He  misunderstood  conversations 
with  Gallatin  and  received  therefrom  a  wrong  impression  of 
Madison's  attitude  on  the  English  question.  He  drew  from 
Canning  a  new  set  of  instructions  as  a  basis  of  negotiation, 
and  then  proceeded,  with  the  best  of  intentions,  to  state  them 
in  such  a  way  as  to  conceal  all  that  was  offensive  in  them  to  our 
government  and  to  bring  out  their  good  points  in  bold  relief. 
Little  trouble  was  now  experienced  in  negotiating  the  prelimi 
naries  of  a  treaty,  whereby  the  President  should  proclaim  a 
suspension  of  noninter course  with  Great  Britain,  as  he  was 
allowed  to  do  under  the  act  of  March  1809,  and  England  was 
to  withdraw  her  Orders  in  Council.  The  English  orders  were 
to  be  void  on  June  10,  1809  and  our  trade  with  England  was 
to  begin  at  once.  Rejoicing  arose  from  every  American  port 
when  the  President's  proclamation  was  read,  the  administration 
was  praised  by  Federalists  as  well  as  by  Republicans,  ships 
hurried  out  to  cross  the  seas. 

Congress,  therefore,  listened  on  May  23  to  the  most  encourag 
ing  message  it  had  listened  to  for  many  a  session.  It  heard 
with  pleasure  of  the  "favorable  change  in  our  foreign  relations, 
the  critical  state  of  which  induced  a  session  of  Congress  at 
this  early  period,"  and  proceeded  to  take  under  consideration 
"the  revision  of  our  commercial  laws,  proper  to  adapt  them 
to  the  arrangement  which  has  taken  place  with  Great 


THE  SMITH  FACTION  151 

Britain."407  The  Federalists,  though  strengthened  in  numbers, 
had  no  grounds  of  opposition  on  which  to  rest  their  struggle 
and  faction  was  for  the  time  being  in  concealment.  Giles  still 
deigned  to  lead  the  administration  forces  in  the  Senate,  directed 
the  order  of  procedure  and  headed  the  Committee  on  Foreign 
Affairs.408  On  May  29,  he  brought  in  a  bill  "to  amend  and  con 
tinue  in  force"  the  Non-intercourse  Act  against  Great  Britain 
and  France.409  After  re-committment  and  amendment  by  the 
House,  it  was  passed  and  became  law  June  28,  1809.  In 
tercourse  with  Great  Britain  was  therein  legalized  though  some 
of  the  provisions  of  the  old  act  were  temporarily  kept  in  force. 
Giles  had  proposed  the  adoption  of  an  act  excluding  from  our 
harbors  the  armed  ships  of  all  nations.41'  But,  for  fear  that  it 
might  hinder  the  negotiations  in  progress,  Congress  postponed 
it  till  next  session.411  In  a  speech  on  the  subject,  Giles  declared 
himself  "extremely  happy  to  find  the  spirit  of  harmony  and  con 
ciliation  which  had  hitherto  characterized  the  Senate,"  and 
promised  that  he  would  "endeavor  to  preserve  and  continue  it." 
Only  one  principle — a  most  significant  principle  for  his 
future — he  insisted  on  in  the  arrangements  that  might  be  made 
with  foreign  nations,  that  of  "strict  impartiality  toward  the 
belligerents,  which  he  could  not  be  induced  to  depart  from  under 
any  circumstances."4  The  chief  interest  of  Giles,  as  respects 
other  measures,  was  devoted  to  the  passage  of  an  act  relieving 
from  penalties,  incurred  under  the  act  prohibiting  the  importa 
tion  of  slaves,  those  persons  who  had  been  forcibly  expelled  from 
the  island  of  Cuba.41'  On  account  of  the  favorable  prospects 
in  our  foreign  relations,  Congress  passed  acts  to  suspend  the 

*°T  Richardson,  Messages,  i,  469. 

^Annals,  Eleventh  Cong.,  1st  Sess.,  13  and  14.  The  standing  com 
mittees  of  the  Senate  did  not  begin  until  1816;  select  committees  prior 
to  that  time  were  designated,  to  which  certain  kinds  of  business  were 
referred.  Giles  had  to  deal  with  military  matters  as  well  as  Foreign 
Relations. 

409  Annals. 

410  Annals,  Eleventh  Cong.,  1st  Sess.,  pt.  i,  19. 

411  Ibid,  44.    See  Leib's  report  on  the  subject. 
413  Ibid,  23. 

413  Ibid,  34-36.     Act  of  June  28,   1809. 


152  WILLIAM  BRANCH  GILES 

enlistment  of  recruits,414  and  authorizing  the  President  to  lay 
up  "such  of  the' frigates  and  public  armed  vessels  as,  in  his  judg 
ment,  a  due  regard  to  the  public  security  and  interest  will  per 
mit."4  The  date  of  the  next  session  of  Congress  was  fixed  for 
the  first  Monday  in  November.416 

But,  before  the  second  session  could  assemble,  the  face  of  the 
situation  had  completely  changed.  News  had  already  been  re 
ceived,  first  of  a  new  order  in  council,417  hardly  consistent  with 
the  promises  of  Erskine,  and  finally  a  repudiation  of  the  agree 
ment  made  by  that  unfortunate  minister.418  Erskine  was  re 
called  and  "Copenhagen"  Jackson,  hero  of  the  English  tyranni 
cal  treatment  of  Denmark  in  1807,  was  sent  to  take  his  place. 
Madison  issued  a  proclamation  putting  the  Non-intercourse  Act 
again  in  force  as  to  Great  Britain,419  and  then  awaited  the 
arrival  of  Canning's  bellicose  representative.  That  individual 
forthwith  sustained  his  reputation  by  charging  our  Executive 
with  having  tricked  Erskine  into  his  violation  of  instructions,420 
and,  after  reiterations  of  the  same  offensive  insinuations,  was 
told  that  our  relations  with  him  were  at  an  end.421  To  Congress 
in  its  second  session,  on  November  9,  the  President  communi 
cated  these  distressing  circumstances.  Nothing  encouraging, 
either,  could  be  reported  in  our  negotiations  with  France ;  the 
wily  Napoleon,  after  hearing  of  the  British  order  of  April  26, 
and  Erskine's  agreement  with  our  country,  had  settled  on  a 
policy  of  seizing  every  American  ship  within  his  power. 

Giles  took  charge  of  the  revelations  made  as  to  our  foreign 
relations,  and,  on  December  5,  came  forward  in  loyal  manner 
with  a  resolution  and  a  bill.  Jackson's  conduct  was  asserted 
by  the  resolutions  to  have  been  "insolent  and  affronting"  and 
the  President's  refusal  to  receive  further  communications  from 

414  Act  of  June  28,   1809. 

415  Act   of  June   28,    1809. 

416  Act  of  June  28,   1809. 

417  Order  of  April  26,  1809. 

418  Order  in  Council,  May  24,  1809. 

419  Messages  and  Papers,  i,  473.     Aug.  9,   1809. 

420  Letter,  Oct.  11.    Annals,  Eleventh  Cong.,  2nd  Sess.,  App.,  2088. 

421  Smith  to  Jackson,  Nov.  8.     Annals,  Eleventh  Cong.,  2nd  Sess.,  App., 
2113. 


THE  SMITH  FACTION  153 

him  as  manifesting  a  just  regard  for  the  "dignity  and  honor" 
of  the  government  and  for  the  "character  and  interest  of  the 
American  people."  It  also  pledged  Congress  to  "call  into 
action  the  whole  force  of  the  nation  if  it  should  be  necessary 

.      .     to  repel  such  insults  and  to  assert  and  maintain  the 
rights,  the  honor,  and  the  interests  of  the  United  States."4 
The  bill  authorized  the  President  to  enforce  the  departure  of 
an  offending  minister.42' 

Speaking  on  the  resolution,  December  8,  Giles  reviewed  at 
length  the  conduct  of  the  British  minister  in  justification  of 
the  epithets  bestowed  upon  it  by  the  resolution  and  the  accom 
panying  bill.  No  new  facts  were  produced  in  the  speech,  but 
an  earnest  and  eloquent  appeal  was  made  for  casting  asida  all 
party  differences  in  the  presence  of  a  national  insult.  Yet,  for 
getting  not  his  duty  as  a  constitutional  and  inevitable  critic, 
he  found  the  cause  of  the  trouble  in  "our  former  manifestations 
of  indecision  as  well  as  in  our  unfortunate  dissensions  and 
divisions."  War,  he  had  little  doubt,  would  come.  "American 
blood,"  he  said,  "must  be  shed,  to  repel  the  hostile  spirit  of  Great 
Britain"  and  to  "wash  away  the  stains  of  our  own  unfortunate 
divisions  and  dissensions."  He  begged  all  to  drop  their  preju 
dices  and  rally  around  the  standard  of  their  own  country. 
"Sir,"  he  concluded,  in  a  beautiful  spirit  of  patriotism,  "I  can 
not  express  to  you  the  pleasure  I  should  feel  at  my  heart,  if 
I  could  see  all  irritations  banished,  and  harmony  and  mutual 
good  will  universally  pervading  all  political  scenes  and  all 
social  intercourse.  That  the  present  occasion  may  be  improved 
to  this  desirable  end,  is  the  most  fervent  prayer  of  one,  who 
in  the  present  delicate  interesting  crisis  of  the  nation,  feels  a 
devotion  for  the  country  beyond  everything  else  on  this  side 
of  Heaven." 

Accompanying  this  glowing  appeal  was  a  strangely  ominous 
encomium  on  the  "dignified  character,  the  high  sensibility,  and 

433  Annals,  Eleventh  Cong.,  Pt.  1,  481. 

428  Ditto.  A  similar  case  arose  in  Jefferson's  administration.  The 
Spanish  minister,  D'Yrujo,  insulted  Madison  and  a  bill  was  introduced  into 
the  Senate  authorizing  the  President  to  order  the  departure  of  foreign 
ministers  under  some  circumstances.  It  was  dropped.  See  Schouler,  ii,  122. 


154*  WILLIAM  BRANCH  GILES 

the  correct  intelligence  of  the  Secretary  of  State."424  The 
resolution  found  no  difficulty  in  passing  the  Senate  on  December 
II,425  and,  after  encountering  all  the  various  forms  of  oppo 
sition  within  the  reach  of  Josiah  Quincy  and  his  brother  Fed 
eralists,  passed  that  body  by  a  very  large  vote.426  After  amend 
ment,  the  bill  giving  to  the  President  power  to  compel  an  ob 
noxious  minister  to  leave  the  country  passed  the  Senate,427  but 
never  became  a  law. 

Another  message  came  from  the  President  on  January  3, 
1810,  recommending  the  enlistment  for  a  short  period  of  a  vol 
unteer  force  of  twenty  thousand  men,  and  throwing  upon  Con 
gress  the  responsibility  of  determining  "how  far  further  pro 
vision  may  be  expedient  for  putting  into  actual  service,  if  nec 
essary,  any  part  of  the  naval  armament  not  now  employed." 
No  one  knew  exactly  what  the  President  wanted  Congress  to 
do.  Did  he  wish  effective  measures  for  war,  or  did  he  desire 
little  change  in  the  provisions  for  defence?  What  light  there 
was  appeared  in  the  concluding  paragraph  congratulating 
Congress  on  the  fact  that  the  public  credit  was  happily  in 
such  a  solid  state  that  reliance  might  be  placed  upon  it  if  neces 
sary  to  take  any  "precautionary  measures  involving  ex 
pense."428  Had  the  President  no  ideas  on  the  subject,  or  did 
he  feel  a  characteristic  delicacy  in  imposing  them  on  a  coor 
dinate  branch  of  Government? 

Giles,  however,  was  not  like  the  President;  he  did  have  ideas 
and  these  ideas  he  had  no  timidity  in  exposing.  It  became  his 
duty  in  the  Senate  as  chairman  of  the  committee  that  dealt 
with  military  affairs,420  to  place  some  construction  upon  it  and 
to  bring  in  a  bill  containing  some  description  of  policy.  On 
January  10,  1810,  therefore,  he  reported  in  part  a  bill  pro 
viding  for  the  filling  out,  officering  and  manning  our  frigates, 
and,  on  the  twenty-third,  delivered  a  significant  speech  defend- 

424  Robert  Smith. 

425  20  to  4 — Goodrich,  Hillhouse,  Lloyd,  and  Pickering  voting  nay. 

426  72  to  41— Jan.  4,  1810. 
^December   20,    1809. 

428  Richardson,  Messages  and  Papers,  i,   478. 

429  See  Annals,  llth  Congress,  Part  1,  479,  520. 


THE  SMITH  FACTION  155 

ing  the  bill.  He  declared,  as  usual,  he  did  not  wish  war  but 
feared  it  might  be  forced  upon  us.  We  must,  therefore,  he 
thought,  be  prepared.  He  regretted  incurring  any  additional 
expense  but  submission  would  cost  us  more.  Besides,  the  people, 
whose  will  seemed  always  so  precious  to  him,  were  looking  to 
Congress  for  measures  of  preparation  for  an  apprehended 
crisis.  Not  for  the  first  time,  Giles  affirmed  that,  although  he 
thought  "a  war  purely  defensive  alone  justifiable,  yet  he 
thought  it  perfectly  correct  to  carry  on  such  a  war  when  under 
taken  offensively;  and  that  it  was  perfectly  justifiable  to  seize 
a  territory,  and  appropriate  it  as  a  just  retribution  for  the 
evils  of  war  justly  inflicted  by  a  culpable  assailant."  In  other 
words  we  might  pay  ourselves  back  for  any  war  with  Great 
Britain  we  might  have  by  seizing  and  invading  Canada.  Such 
an  argument  was  a  few  years  later  to  do  much  to  bring  on  the 
war  of  1812 — which,  if  Giles  had  had  his  way,  would  have  been 
the  war  of  1810. 

As  a  matter  of  fact,  the  time  had  now  come  for  a  break  with 
the  administration  of  James  Madison.  The  policy  now  pursued 
by  Giles  and  the  Smiths  was  exactly  the  same  as  that  pursued 
in  the  spring  of  1809  when  they  united  with  the  Federalists  in 
the  hated  navy  coalition.  Humored  at  the  outset  by  the  ap 
pointment  of  Robert  Smith,  they  had  worked  harmoniously 
with  the  administration  during  the  first  session  of  the  eleventh 
Congress;  but  Gallatin  had  since  further  offended  Robert  and 
Samuel  Smith  by  his  castigation  of  their  navy  deal.  The  Jack 
son  crisis  had  produced  a  momentary  unity,  for  which  Giles 
appealed,  yet  the  Gallatin  influence  was  constantly  increasing 
and  the  vacillating  policy  of  the  administration  failed  any 
longer  to  form  a  natural  rallying  ground.  It  was,  as  I  have 
intimated,  by  no  means  all  the  fault  of  Giles  and  his  friends. 
Having  as  much  selfish  ambition  and  personal  resentment  as 
had  other  men,  they  had  no  less  patriotism.  A  decided  policy, 
a  firm  voice  could  have  held  them  at  least  in  an  outward  loyalty. 
But  this  decided  policy,  this  firm  voice  was  exactly  what  was 
lacking  in  the  Father  of  the  Constitution,  now  unfortunately 
compelled  to  rule  when  only  such  policies  could  avail.  From 


156  WILLIAM  BRANCH  GILES 

1810  to  1815,  there  was,  in  consequence,  hardly  a  Republican 
leadership.  There  were  factions  and  cliques,  and  the  consistent 
supporters  of  the  administration  itself  could  hardly  be  called 
more  than  a  Gallatin-Madison  clique. 

Influenced  by  personal  motives  Giles  undoubtedly  was,  but 
he  also,  no  doubt,  expressed  his  conscientious  views  in  the  fol 
lowing  declaration  of  war:  "The  visionary  theory  of  energy 
was,  therefore,  the  fatal  error  of  the  Federal  party ;  and  that 
error  deprived  it  of  the  power  of  the  nation.  The  Government 
being  thus  placed  in  the  hands  of  the  Republicans,  whilst  heated 
with  the  zeal  of  opposition  to  the  Federal  doctrines,  and  flushed 
with  their  recent  triumph,  it  was  natural  for  them,  with  the 
best  intentions,  to  run  into  the  opposite  extreme ;  to  go  too  far 
in  the  relaxations  of  the  powers  of  the  Government,  and  to 
indulge  themselves  in  the  delightful  visions  of  extending  the 
range  of  individual  liberty.  They  were,  therefore,  in  danger 
of  relaxing  the  powers  of  the  Government  so  far  as  to  deprive 
it  of  the  means  of  its  own  preservation  and  execution  for 
domestic  objects,  and  to  impair  or  to  destroy  its  efficacy  in  re 
sisting  foreign  aggressions.  The  theory,  therefore,  of  the  Re 
publicans,  as  opposed  to  that  of  the  Federalists,  was  the  relax 
ation  of  governmental  restraints,  or  the  extension  of  individual 
liberty.  It  was  natural  that,  in  the  vibration  of  the  political  pen 
dulum,  it  should  go  from  one  extreme  to  another ;  and  that  this 
has  been  too  much  the  case  with  the  Republican  Administration, 
he  regretted  to  say,  he  feared,  would  be  demonstrated  by  a  very 
superficial  review  of  the  events  of  the  last  two  or  three  years. 
He  said  it  had  been  his  fortune  to  oppose  both  of  these  ex 
tremes;  that  he  thought  the  true  policy  of  the  United  States 
would  be  found  in  the  medium  between  these  two  extremes ;  that 
he  had  steadfastly  placed  his  footing  on  that  ground;  and 
that  he  should  not  be  driven  from  it,  until  he  was  convinced  he 
had  assumed  an  unwise  position."430 

To  Giles,  Crawford  made  answer,  and,  though  supposed  to 
represent  the  attitude  of  the  administration,  asserted  that  the 
President's  message  "in  point  of  obscurity,  comes  nearer  my 

480  Annals,    Eleventh    Cong.,    Part    1,    535, 


THE  SMITH  FACTION  157 

ideas  of  a  Delphic  oracle  than  any  State  paper  which  has  come 
under  my  inspection."  It  is  for  war,  it  is  for  peace,  it  is  for 
a  large  standing  army,  it  is  for  militia,  it  "means  anything  or 
nothing,  at  the  will  of  the  commentator."431  However  that 
might  be,  he  was  not  for  this  bill.  If  the  nation  should  be  in 
volved  in  war,  it  ought  to  be  prosecuted  with  vigor ;  "but,  until 
this  event  should  happen,  he  was  opposed  to  measures  which 
exhausted  the  Treasury  without  adding  to  the  real  and  sub 
stantial  defence  of  the  nation."4  Despite  these  views  coming 
as  they  no  doubt  did,  with  the  exception  of  the  criticism  of  the 
message,  direct  from  Albert  Gallatin,  twenty-five  senators 
agreed  with  Giles  and  only  five  with  Crawford.433  Giles,  ac 
cording  to  Henry  Adams  in  commenting  on  this  result,  "im 
pressed  the  least  agreeable  qualities  of  his  peculiar  character 
on  this  Senate."434 — a  striking  testimony  from  a  hostile  his 
torian  to  the  influence  and  power  of  the  man.  A  man  who  could 
impress  "the  least  agreeable  qualities  of  his  peculiar  character" 
on  all  but  six  members  of  the  United  States  Senate  must  have 
had  certain  other  qualities  and  motives  that  were  not  disagree 
able;  and  the  Republican  party  which  "as  a  whole"  drew  un 
favorable  inferences  as  to  the  motives  of  a  fellow  senator  in 
proposing  a  bill,  must  have  been  even  worse  than  the  senator 
himself  if  with  this  belief  they  supported  him  by  an  overwhelm 
ing  vote. 

Giles  had  now  shown  his  independence  of  the  administration ; 
it  remained  for  him  to  show  the  same  attitude  to  the  faction 
to  which  he  was  supposed  to  belong.  If  mere  factiousness 
determined  his  whole  conduct,  he  would  probably  have  supported 
the  Smiths  in  their  opposition  to  the  so-called  Macon  Bill  num 
ber  1,  when  it  came  before  the  Senate.  That  bill,  a  cabinet 
measure,  introduced  in  the  House,  December  19,  prohibited  all 
public  vessels  of  Great  Britain  and  France  from  entering  the 
harbors  of  the  United  States,  and  all  importations  from  the  two 
belligerent  powers  and  their  colonies  to  the  United  States  unless 

481  Annals,  Eleventh  Congress,  Part  I,  544. 

483  Ibid,  547. 
433  Ditto. 

484  Adams,  United  States,  V,  181. 


158  WILLIAM  BRANCH  GILES 

imported  directly  from  them  and  in  American  ships.43*  When, 
after  passing  the  House,  it  came  before  the  Senate,  on  motion 
of  Samuel  Smith,  it  was  emasculated  of  everything  except  the 
section  excluding  the  public  ships  of  the  two  nations. 43(  Giles 
did  not  vote  at  all  but,  when,  on  March  19,  it  returned  to  the 
Senate,  he  voted  against  the  Smiths  and  for  the  administra 
tion.43'  On  the  Macon  Bill  number  II,  his  only  recorded  vote 
was  on  the  side  of  Smith  and  the  Federalists.438  Congress  ad 
journed  on  May  1  and  with  it  the  system  of  commercial  restric 
tions  disappeared,  except  as  to  the  discretion  allowed  to  the 
President  in  case  either  power  should  repeal  its  decrees. 

During  the  spring,  before  the  adjournment  of  Congress,  an 
important  domestic  event  had  taken  place  in  Giles's  life — a 
second  marriage.  While  travelling  in  her  coach  from  the 
White  Sulphur  Springs,  the  first  Mrs.  Giles  had  died  suddenly 
at  Fincastle,  Virginia.  There  she  was  interred,  and  a  monu 
ment  erected  by  her  devoted  husband  still  stands,  we  are  told, 
in  perfect  condition.439  Consolation,  however,  seems  in  due  time 
to  have  been  discovered.  In  the  Enquirer  of  March  9,  1810, 
appeared  in  the  quaint  language  of  that  day  a  letter  from 
Washington  under  date  of  February  22,  "Mr.  .  .  .  ," 
it  said,  "is  to  be  married  this  evening  to  a  most  lovely  girl, 
with  fair  skin,  auburn  hair,  elegant  form,  a  fine  intelligent 
face,  and  not  quite  17 — He  is  as  bold  in  love  as  in  politics — I 
hope  he  will  be  equally  powerful —  The  odds  may  prove  against 
him — but,  for  youth,  beauty,  and  innocence  combined  in  a 
female  form,  even  death  itself  may  be  resigned."  Further  on 
appears  an  explanatory  notice:  "Married — in  Georgetown  on 
the  22nd  February  by  the  Rev.  Dr.  Gantt,  the  Hon.  William 
B.  Giles,  Senator  in  the  Congress  of  the  U.  States,  to  Miss 
Frances  Ann  Gwynn,  eldest  daughter  of  the  late  Thomas  Pey 
ton  Gwynn,  of  Virginia."  The  new  wife,  like  his  first,  was 

485  Annals,  Eleventh  Cong.,  Part  i,  754-755. 

486  Ibid,   577,   Feb.   21.    Smith   claimed   to   do   it,   however,   because   he 
wished   stronger  measures. 

437  Ibid,  611. 

""Annals,  Eleventh  Cong.,  Part  1,  678.    May  1. 

489  Mrs.  William  Overton.    MSS.  Memoirs. 


THE  SMITH  FACTION  159 

descended  from  the  Peytons;  she  was,  indeed,  cousin  to  Miss 
Martha  Peyton  Tabb,  who  had  in  1797  married  Representative 
Giles. 

The  final  session  of  the  eleventh  Congress  began  on  Decem 
ber  3,  1810.  The  message  told  of  Napoleon's  withdrawal  of 
decrees  and  of  the  English  promise  to  withdraw  theirs  when  the 
French  decrees  should  have  actually  ceased  to  operate.  The 
proclamation  for  the  occupation  of  West  Florida  was  laid  be 
fore  Congress.440  These  two  portions  of  the  message  were 
turned  over  for  report  to  the  Committee  on  Foreign  Affairs, 
over  which  Giles  still  presided.441  Without  delay,  he  brought  in 
a  bill  extending  the  boundary  and  laws  of  the  Territory  of 
Orleans  to  the  Perdido  River.  But,  leaving  Washington  imme 
diately,  he  did  not  participate  in  the  discussion  of  the  bill,  the 
burden  of  the  debate  being  borne  by  two  senators  naturally  in 
terested  in  western  affairs,  Senators  Clay  and  Pope  of  Ken 
tucky.  To  the  Federalists,  the  whole  procedure  of  the  President 
had  been  unconstitutional  and  arbitrary,  and  the  bill  proposed 
was  unwarranted.  Clay  and  Pope,  expressing  no  doubt  the 
opinion  of  Giles  as  well  as  themselves,  boldly  contended  that 
West  Florida  had  been  ours  since  the  treaty  of  1803,  that  the 
authority  of  the  President  to  occupy  the  region  was  well 
grounded,  both  in  statute  and  in  Constitutional  law,  and  that 
occupation,  was,  at  the  present  time,  expedient.  The  bill,  how 
ever,  by  the  end  of  the  year  had  been  given  up.  But  the  House, 
during  the  same  period,  was  discussing  a  bill  for  the  annexation 
of  Louisiana  with  boundary  extending  to  the  Perdido,  the  limits 
of  the  President's  October  Proclamation  and  of  the  Senate  bill. 
However,  in  order  to  secure  the  passage  of  the  enabling  act442 
for  the  admission  of  Louisiana,  the  eastern  boundary  had  to 
be  limited  to  the  Iberville,  though  at  the  time  of  the  actual  ad 
mission  in  1812,  the  boundaries  were  arranged  to  include  most 
of  West  Florida.443 

440  Richardson,  Messages  and  Papers,  I,  483-484. 

441  See  note  on  page  151  above. 
443  Act  approved  Feb.  20,  1811. 

448  To  the  Pearl  River,  Act  approved  April  14,  1812. 


160  WILLIAM  BRANCH  GILES 

A  measure  much  more  interesting  to  us  and  much  more  im 
portant  to  Giles's  career  was  the  bill  for  the  renewal  of  the 
charter  of  the  Bank  of  the  United  States.  The  period  for 
which  this  famous  institution,  parent  of  many  fierce  party 
conflicts,  was  incorporated  would  expire  on  March  4,  1811. 
Historians  are  all  agreed  on  the  facts  of  its  success  as  a  finan 
cial  enterprise  and  its  usefulness  as  an  agent  of  the  government. 
But  the  dangers  which  had  been  feared  at  the  date  of  its  incor 
poration  had  not  been  forgotten;  all  the  old  objections  to  it 
were  now  recalled,  and,  when  it  sought  a  renewal  of  its  charter, 
were  to  rise  again  and  others  were  to  appear,  provoked  by  the 
financial  tendencies  of  the  period. 

As  early  as  March  26,  1808,  the  stockholders  had  petitioned 
for  a  renewal  of  their  act  of  incorportion ;  the  House  had,  in 
April,  1810,  discussed  several  plans  for  that  object  but  had 
adjourned  before  taking  final  action.  On  the  18th  of  Decem 
ber,  1810,  a  petition  was  presented  by  Mr.  Leib,  one  of  the  sena 
tors  from  Pennsylvania  and  a  member  of  the  anti-administration 
faction,  signed  by  the  President  and  Directors  of  the  Bank  of 
the  United  States,  praying  for  a  renewal  of  their  charter.  The 
matter  was  referred  to  a  committee,  whose  chairman  was  Wil 
liam  H.  Crawford,  and  other  memorials444  for  the  same  purpose 
were  handed  over  to  the  same  committee.  Memorials  were  like 
wise  received  against  the  proposal  in  both  Senate  and  House,44S 
including  one  from  the  Legislature  of  Virginia.  As  an  illustra 
tion  of  the  avowed  attitude  of  certain  states  and  as  having,  also, 
an  important  relation  to  important  subsequent  developments 
in  Giles's  career,  it  is  not  without  value  to  quote  this  memorial 
of  the  General  Assembly:  "The  General  Assembly  of  Virginia 
view  with  the  most  serious  concern  the  late  attempts  which  have 
been  made  to  obtain  from  Congress  a  renewal  of  the  charter 
incorporating  the  Bank  of  the  United  States : 

"This  Assembly  are  deeply  impressed  with  the  conviction 
that  the  original  grant  of  that  charter  was  unconstitutional; 
that  Congress  have  no  power  whatever  to  renew  it ;  and  that  the 

^Annals,  Eleventh  Cong.,  Third  Sess.,  31,  87,  112. 
445  Ibid,  118,  705,  828. 


THE  SMITH  FACTION  161 

exercise  of  such  a  power  would  be  not  only  unconstitutional, 
but  a  dangerous  encroachment  on  the  sovereignty  of  the  states ; 
Therefore,  Resolved,  That  the  Senators  of  this  State,  in  the 
Congress  of  the  United  States,  be  instructed,  and  our  Repre 
sentatives  most  earnestly  requested,  in  the  exercise  of  their 
duties,  as  the  faithful  Representatives  of  their  country,  to  use 
their  best  efforts  in  opposing,  by  every  means  iri  their  power,  the 
renewal  of  the  charter  of  the  Bank  of  the  United  States."4 

It  will  at  once  be  seen  that  no  accusation  of  a  misuse  of  its 
power,  no  charge  of  mismanagement  was  made,  but  that  the 
opposition  was  placed  exclusively  on  theoretical  grounds.  The 
resolutions  of  Pennsylvania  were  of  the  same  character.  Was 
it  then  true  that  opposition  to  this  measure  so  much  desired  by 
many  citizens  and  deemed  so  necessary  by  the  able  secretary  of 
the  Treasury,  was  due  purely  to  a  love  of  the  Constitution? 
As  a  matter  of  fact,  where  men's  language  is  most  profuse 
in  the  expression  of  constitutional  scruple,  their  minds 
are  usually  most  immovably  fixed  on  certain  practical  concerns. 
If  Madison,  the  Father  of  the  Constitution,  and  the  author  of 
the  Resolutions  of  1798,  was  not  alarmed  for  fear  of  an  irre 
trievable  injury  to  the  great  charter  of  our  liberties,  it  may  be 
certain  that  the  legislatures  of  Virginia  and  Pennsylvania  did 
not  feel  as  grave  concern  on  that  subject  as  they  felt  on  some 
thing  that  touched  their  interests  more  closely.  The  Bank  of 
the  Potomac,  the  Bank  of  Alexandria,  the  Bank  of  Washington, 
and  other  banks  to  be  established  in  the  District  of  Columbia, 
were,  at  this  session  of  the  Congress,  praying  for  charters. 44; 
Hundreds  of  banks  were  chartered  by  state  legislatures  and 
these  banks  were  allowed  to  issue  bills  of  credit.448  Numerous 
private  banking  institutions  had  sprung  up  in  Virginia  without 
charters  and  these  issued  notes.  Not  only  were  thousands  of 
citizens  in  this  way  thrown  into  competition  with  the  Bank  of 

448  As  a  further  illustration  of  Republican  feeling  in  Virginia,  see  Virginia 
Argus,  Feb.  8,  1811— The  "temporary,  unlawful  influences,  and  unlawful 
practices  that  have  been  interposed  to  bias  Congress  has  not  been  equalled  in 
the  oldest  and  most  corrupt  government  of  Europe."  It  asserted  that  the 
renewal  of  the  charter  would  shake  if  not  destroy  the  Republican  party. 

447  See  Annals  passim. 

448  The    Bank   of   Virginia,    The    Farmers'    Bank,   etc. 


162  WILLIAM  BRANCH  GILES 

the  United  States  and,  not  unnaturally,  little  desirous  of  the 
recharter  of  that  enterprise,  but  a  number  of  states  including 
Virginia  were  stockholders  in  local  Banks.44*  And  where  the 
states  themselves  were  not  directly  interested,  members  of  the 
state  legislatures  were.  Who  would,  therefore,  profit  if  the 
United  States  Government  had  to  turn  elsewhere  for  deposi 
tories  for  the  public  funds?  Very  appropriately,  therefore,  did 
Virginia,  Pennsylvania  and  Kentucky  protest  that  an  act  of 
incorporation  of  the  United  States  Bank  would  be  an  infringe 
ment  of  the  sovereignty  of  the  states.450 

The  Legislature  of  Virginia  had  spoken,  the  newspapers  took 
up  the  cry.  The  Enquirer  and  the  Argus  of  Richmond  sounded 
the  orthodox  Republican  note,  and  on  February  14,  1811,  Giles 
arose  to  express  his  opinions.  He  arose,  he  said,  under  peculiar 
embarrassment  arising  "from  a  conviction  that  the  views  of  the 
subject  now  proposed  to  be  exhibited  will  disappoint  the  expec 
tations  both  of  the  opposers  and  the  favorers  of  the  bill,  and 
that  they  will  not  be  acceptable  to  either."  However,  he 
announced  to  an  audience  undoubtedly  not  surprised  to  receive 
the  information,  "that  he  should  not  depart  from  his  invariable 
habit,"  when  urged  by  duty  to  participate  in  debate  before  this 
honorable  body,  "of  disclosing  in  the  most  undisguised  manner 
my  real  opinions  upon  the  whole  subject,  free  of  any  con 
sideration  of  political  difficulties  or  inconveniences  which  may 
consequently  affect  myself."  Proceeding,  he  entered  into  a  con 
fusing  labyrinth  of  constitutional  discussion,  intended  to  prove 
that  the  government  of  the  United  States  was  equipped  by  the 
constitution  with  sufficient  powers  for  its  maintenance  and  to 
justify  the  adoption  of  strong  measures  by  the  administration 
of  Jefferson,  and,  at  the  same  time,  to  show  that  it  did  not 
contain  authority  for  the  establishment  of  a  National  Bank. 
So  far  had  he  advanced  from  the  old  strict  construction  ground 
of  1791  or  1798  that  he  bewailed  the  fact  that  "gentlemen 
should  be  delighted  with  curtailing  the  Constitutional  powers 
of  the  Government  and  enfeebling  its  necessary  energies."  And 

^Speech  of  Fisk  in  the  House,  Annals,  Eleventh  Cong.,  Third  Sess., 
b'12-613. 

450  Speech  of  Crawford,  Annals,  143. 


THE  SMITH  FACTION  163 

he  now  was  actually  afraid  that  we  had  swung  so  far  away 
from  the  Federalist  tendency  to  consolidation  that  "the  Govern 
ment  will  fall  to  pieces  from  the  want  of  due  energy  in  the 
administration  of  its  legitimate  powers,  or  that  some  extraor 
dinary  means  must  be  resorted  to  for  its  resuscitation."  The 
present  administration  was  the  subject  of  frequent  thrusts 
throughout  the  speech  because  of  "the  inefficacy  of  our  meas 
ures  to  repel  foreign  aggressions,  to  assert  our  rights,  and  to 
do  ourselves  justice,"  and  because  of  "its  inactivity  and  feeble 
ness."  Not  from  any  defects  of  powers  in  the  Constitution  did 
these  things  exist,  "because  in  that  respect  they  were  unlim 
ited,"  but  because  the  Republican  administrations  have  "theor 
ized  and  criticized  themselves  into  such  fears  of  the  undue 
exercise  of  power,  that  they  will  not  duly  exercise  it  when 
indispensably  necessary  to  the  national  character  and  inter 
ests,"  because  of  the  unwillingness  of  gentlemen  "to  act  up"  to 
"the  fair  and  candid  interpretation  of"  the  meaning  of  the 
Constitution.  Then  why  in  the  name  of  the  Constitution  object 
to  the  legality  of  the  Bank?  The  answer  was  ready — in  the  lan 
guage  of  earlier  days,  because  the  power  of  incorporation  "is 
not  among  the  common,  necessary  and  proper  means  of  effecting 
either  of  the  foregoing  enumerated  powers,"  etc. 

So  much  for  the  constitution,  which,  to  Giles,  throughout  the 
years,  had  taken  on  a  different  character  from  that  which  he 
attributed  to  it  in  the  enthusiastic  days  of  a  struggling  Repub 
licanism.  Why  was  a  Bank  inexpedient?  Because  "Seven  tenths 
of  the  whole  stock  are  held  by  British  capitalists."  And  Giles 
could  see  "neither  the  policy  nor  the  expediency  of  extending 
these  favors  and  advantages  voluntarily  to  these  foreigners  for 
twenty  years  in  exclusion  of  our  own  citizens."  But  further: 
"My  objection,"  he  says,  "arises  from  the  enormous  British 
influence  which  notoriously  pervades  this  country ;  and  I  believe, 
affects  the  proceedings  of  Government  so  seriously,  that  it  can 
hardly  be  said  to  be  independent.  I  verily  believe,  that  this  bale 
ful  influence  has  already  driven  the  Government  from  measures 
which  the  best  interest  of  the  nation  required."  All  the  diver 
sified  influences  from  identity  of  language,  legal  precedents, 


164  WILLIAM  BRANCH  GILES 

intermarriages,  etc.  are  given  "a  body  and  form  for  action"  by 
the  interest  of  British  captialists  in  the  National  Bank.  This 
sounds  like  the  speeches  againt  the  Jay  Treaty,  the  opposition 
to  Alexander  Hamilton,  and  the  attack  on  the  administration 
of  John  Adams.  The  state  of  Virginia  had,  as  we  have  seen, 
instructed  him  to  vote  against  the  Bank;  this  he  did.  He  was 
willing  to  obey — because  they  and  he  thought  alike  on  the  sub 
ject  of  the  bank.  But,  in  the  speech  we  are  now  considering,  he 
took  occasion  to  give  his  theories  of  the  right  of  a  state  legisla 
ture  to  instruct  its  representatives.  During  the  progress  of  the 
debate,  senators  had  explained  their  attitude  by  reference  to 
instructions  from  their  legislatures  which  they  thought  required 
obedience.  Differing  no  whit  from  his  legislature  on  the  subject 
of  the  Bank,  knowing  that  he  would  have  "to  encounter  strong 
and  honorable  and  perhaps  insuperable  prepossessions"  against 
his  opinion  in  the  state  he  had  the  honor  to  represent,  fearing 
nothing,  helpless  to  conceal  his  views  on  a  constitutional  ques 
tion  whether  they  would  hurt  or  hinder,  were  needed  or  were 
even  superfluous,  he  went  on  to  expose  to  "the  people"  the 
danger,  in  his  opinion,  threatening  the  "due  administration  of 
this  Government,"  regardless  of  any  consequences  to  himself 
upon  the  political  arena.  For,  whatever  the  imperfections  of 
the  man — and  they  were  not  few — he  could  in  leadership  repress 
his  prejudice  and  peculiar  views  for  the  good  of  the  party,  but 
in  opposition  he  was  willing  to  stand  alone  against  the  world. 
He  denied  the  mandatory  character  of  instructions :-  a  senator 
was,  he  thought,  not  compelled  to  vote  according  to  the  bidding 
of  his  legislature  although  the  state  had  a  right  to  issue  instruc 
tions  in  an  advisory  capacity  and  in  certain  cases  might  do  so 
with  profit,  yet  the  use  of  instructions  as  a  frequent  thing 
was  conducive  of  great  evils.  It  introduced  into  the  Senate  too 
large  a  measure  of  local  feeling  and  opinion;  it  tended  to 
restrain  "the  free  exercise  of  opinion;"  if  extensively  indulged 
in,  the  result  might  be  the  destruction  of  the  Senate's  power  to 
achieve  anything.  While  feeling  "the  most  unbounded  con 
fidence"  in  the  wisdom  and  the  patriotism  of  the  legislature  of 
Virginia,  "he  considered  himself  the  representative  of  the  people 


THE  SMITH  FACTION  165 

of  the  United  States,  delegated  to  that  character  by  the  Legis 
lature  of  Virginia."  He  did,  indeed,  demolish  the  doctrine  of  the 
mandatory  character  of  legislative  instruction  for  United 
States  Senators,  but  he  came  very  near  demolishing  his  own 
career  as  a  public  servant. 

Giles's  speech  did  not,  apparently,  make  a  favorable  impres 
sion.  Henry  Clay,451  who  followed  him  on  the  same  side  of  the 
question,  could  not  resist  the  temptation  to  create  a  laugh  by 
accusing  Giles  of  proving  both  sides  of  the  question.452  And 
John  Randolph,  who  now  had  good  reason  to  hate  the  Senator, 
although  they  had  been  the  closest  of  associates,  said  in  a  letter, 
"Giles  made  this  morning  the  most  unintelligible  speech  on  the 
subject  of  the  Bank  of  the  United  States  that  I  ever  heard. 
He  spoke  upwards  of  two  hours  ;  seemed  never  to  understand 
himself  (except  upon  one  commonplace  topic  of  British  influ 
ence),  and  consequently  excited  in  his  hearers  no  other  senti 
ment  but  pity  or  disgust.  But  I  shall  not  be  surprised  to  see 
him  puffed  in  all  the  newspapers  of  a  certain  faction."453 

Whatever  our  judgment  as  to  the  character  of  the  speech, 
there  can  be  little  criticism  of  Giles's  vote.  His  state  was 
against  the  Bank;  his  record  was  against  it.  However  much 
his  attitude  might  be  attributed  to  factiousness  and  to  the  influ 
ence  of  friendship  for  Samuel  Smith  and  of  enmity  for  Albert 
Gallatin,  although  he  voted  as  faction  would  require,  he  would 
undoubtedly  have  voted  the  same  way  had  he  played  to  no  fac 
tion.  On  the  20th  of  February,  the  Senate  killed  the  bill,454  the 
Vice-president  casting  the  deciding  vote,  and,  in  defence  of  his 
action,  reading  a  speech  written  for  him  by  Caesar  A.  Rodney  of 
Delaware.455 

The  opinion  of  the  Legislature  of  Virginia  was  of  more  sig 
nificance  to  Giles  than  were  the  opinions  of  Henry  Clay  and 


481  Clay  also  acted  under  instructions. 

463  See  Annals,  Eleventh  Cong.,  3rd  Sess.,  209. 


Randolph  to  Judge  Nicholson,  Feb.  14,  1811.  Adams'  Gallatin, 
430. 

464  Annals,  346. 

468  Civil  History  of  the  War  of  1812—  National  Intelligencer,  Aug.  8, 
1857. 


166  WILLIAM  BRANCH  GILES 

John  Randolph.  Both  Senators  from  Virginia  had  angered 
the  legislature:  Richard  Brent  by  voting  contrary  to  their 
desires,450  Giles  by  denying  the  binding  character  of  the  instruc 
tions,  which,  however,  he  followed.  The  doctrine  of  instructions 
was  precious  to  Virginia;  they  had  used  it  before — once  even 
Senator  Giles  drafting  the  resolutions  sent  by  the  Legislature 
to  their  senators457 — and  were  often  to  use  it  again.  It  was  to 
Virginia  a  bulwark  of  liberty,  a  protection  against  consolidated 
government.  Whoever  touched  this  sacred  ark  of  freedom  was 
deserving  of  death. 

The  great  Democratic  organ  of  Virginia  upheld  it  against 
attack,458  and  public  meetings  toasted  it  as  a  cardinal  right  of 
the  people.  Writers  took  up  their  pens  in  its  defence.  The 
legislature  could  not  remain  silent  in  face  of  the  insult  inflicted 
on  itself,  and  dared  not  allow  such  unorthodox  opinions  to  go 
unrebuked.  In  January,  John  Tyler  proposed  in  the  House  of 
Delegates  resolutions  of  censure  against  its  rebellious  Sena 
tors:459  these  gave  way  to  a  substitute  by  Benjamin  Watkins 
Leigh,  which  was  adopted. 4G( 

To  these  resolutions,  Giles  made  answer  in  an  able  letter  of 
defence,  dated  November  26,  1812,  and  published  for  distribu 
tion.461  Had  this  disagreement  between  Senator  Giles  and  the 
General  Assembly  of  Virginia  occurred  before  his  reelection  to 

456  Annals,  346.     Brent  also  thought  instructions  on  Constitutional  ques 
tions  were  not  binding,  270. 

457  In   1800. 

458  Enquirer,   May  17,   1811,   etc. 

459  Tyler's  Lives  and  Times  of  the  Tylers,  i,  274-275.    Journal  of  House 
of   Delegates. 

«°  Journal,  House  of  Delegates,  1811-1812,  (155-159)  Feb.  19, 
1812.  Leigh  desired  to  shield  Brent  and  did  not  wish  to  "join  in  trampling 
any  man  [Giles]  under  foot,  however  I  may  dislike  him,  who  is  already 
prostrate  on  the  earth."  The  resolutions  seem  to  have  been  aimed  at 
Giles  not  so  much  for  his  attitude  on  the  Bank  as  because  of  his  anti- 
administration  attitude.  Giles's  enemies,  "not  knowing  how  to  get  at  him 
upon  the  new  ground,"  writes  Leigh,  in  December,  181 1,  "would  willingly 
attack  him  upon  the  old  one,  rather  than  not  attack  him  at  all."  In  such 
a  case  Brent  would  have  to  be  brought  in.  See  Leigh  to  Monroe,  Dec. 
12,  1811.  Monroe  MSS.,  Lib.  of  Cong. 

461  Letter  from  Wm.  B.  Giles,  Esq.,  Senator  in  Congress,  To  the  Honorable 
the  Legislature  of  Virginia,  Washington,  1812,  p.  29. 


THE  SMITH  FACTION  167 

the  Senate,  that  event  would  doubtless  not  have  taken  place. 
The  Senatorial  election  had  occurred  January  2,  1811,  and  the 
incumbent  had  received  the  flattering  vote  of  123  to  15.  But, 
from  February  14,  his  popularity  in  Virginia  had  dwindled  to 
nothingness.  The  people,  in  their  meetings,  not  only  upheld  the 
doctrine  of  instructions,  but  censured  their  Senators  and  threat 
ened  their  continuance  in  office.461  The  Enquirer  soon  took  up 
the  fight  against  the  man  who  neither  represented  his  state  nor 
supported  James  Madison,  and  the  statesman  who  had  been 
toasted  and  praised  became  in  the  course  of  a  few  months  the 
most  unpopular  man  in  the  commonwealth  of  Virginia.46' 

But  Giles  was  not  the  only  official  in  trouble.  By  the  end  of 
the  eleventh  session  of  Congress,  the  position  of  the  administra 
tion  had  become  acute.  It  was  unable  to  secure  the  adoption 
of  its  cherished  measures,  and  it  floundered  helplessly  among 
the  rocks  of  opposition.  The  rock  of  offence  was  the  feud  of 
Gallatin  and  the  Smiths.,  and  the  remedy  would  have  to  be  the 
destruction  of  one  or  the  other  of  the  belligerents.  Randolph's 
diagnosis  of  the  case  was  correct  when  he  said :  "Things  as  they 
are  cannot  go  on  much  longer  .  .  .  Nothing  then  re 
mains  but  to  lighten  the  ship,  which  a  dead  calm  has  hitherto 
kept  from  going  to  pieces."4  The  Smiths,  Giles  and  their 
friends  also  thought  it  necessary  to  lighten  the  ship,  but  their 
way  of  lightening  it  was  to  force  the  sacrifice  of  Gallatin.  As 
early  as  1809,  that  distinguished  financier  had  agreed  to  with 
draw  but  had  not  been  allowed  to  do  so  and  now  he  was  ready 
once  more  to  yield  the  fight.465  But  that  was  not  to  be — Duane 
and  the  Aurora,  Ritchie  and  the  Enquirer,  Robert  and  Samuel 
Smith,  Giles,  Leib,  and  German  might  pray  and  intrigue  for  it, 
but  it  was  not  to  be.  Through  Senator  Brent,  Giles's  colleague, 
Monroe  was  sounded  on  his  willingness  to  accept  the  position  of 
Secretary  of  State.  Urged  by  John  Taylor,466  his  friend  and 

462  Enquirer,  June  4,  July  11,  etc.,  1811. 

483  Ibid,  May  17,  1811,  May  22,  Nov.  14,  1812,  Nov.  26,  Dec.  11,  1813,  etc. 
Leigh  said,  "Mr.  Giles  is  down-down — lower  than  it  has  entered  into  your 
imagination  to  conceive.     He  is  detested — abominated." 

484  Adams,  U.  S.,  V,  361. 

465  Adams'  Gallatin,  434.     Letter  to  Madison. 
^Branch  Historical  Papers,  June,  1908. 


168  WILLIAM  BRANCH  GILES 

counsellor,  he  agreed  to  take  office  for  the  sake,  if  possible,  of 
preventing  war.  All  then  necessary  was  to  dispose  of  the 
incumbent,  who,  forthwith,  was  told  that  his  services  and  con 
duct  were  unsatisfactory  to  the  administration  and  that  he 
could  have  the  mission  to  Russia  if  he  desired.  This  offer  he 
finally  declined  to  accept  but  his  withdrawal  from  the  position 
of  Secretary  of  State  was  effected  and  Monroe  became  Secre 
tary  under  his  rival  of  three  years  before.  All  of  this  had  been 
accomplished  before  April  2,  when  the  new  official  began  to  dis 
charge  his  duties.  The  administration  was  saved,  the  enemy  dis 
comfited,  but  the  fight  on  Gallatin  was  not  discontinued. 

Not  an  indifferent  observer  of  these  conflicts  was  the  Repub 
lican  ex-President.  In  March,  1810,  Jefferson  had,  in  a  letter  to 
Doctor  Walter  Jones,  deplored  dissensions  in  the  cabinet.467  In 
letters  in  March  and  April,  1811,  in  stirring  terms  he  appealed 
to  Duane's  party  loyalty.  The  opinion  of  the  people  of  Vir 
ginia,  like  his,  he  thought,  was  with  the  administration.46* 
Ritchie's  course  also  worried  him.  Although  generally  loyal  to 
Madison  personally,  the  great  Virginia  editor  could  not  bear 
the  Swiss  financier.  Even  after  Jefferson's  remonstrances 
through  Wirt,469  the  Enquirer  gave  its  reasons  for  an  opposi 
tion  to  the  Secretary,  They  were  his  interference  in  our  foreign 
relations,  and  in  the  measures  of  Congress,  and  his  support  of 
the  United  States  Bank.  Ritchie  would  have  been  glad  had 
Gallatin  and  Smith  retired  at  the  same  time.470  But  ten  days 
before  this  editorial,  Ritchie  had  opposed  the  appointment  of 
Monroe  on  the  ground  of  his  negotiation  of  the  Treaty  of  1806. 

To  Giles  and  General  Samuel  Smith,  also,  Jefferson's  friend, 
Nicholas,  was  to  write  "very  serious  and  urgent  letters 
.  .  on  the  course  pursued  by  them."471  But,  for  these 
gentlemen,  there  was  to  be  no  cessation  until  they  too  should 
be  compelled  to  leave  the  positions  of  influence  they  oc 
cupied.  Equally  with  Madison  and  Gallatin  they  believed 

467  Jefferson,  Writings  (Ford),  ix,  273. 

^  Letters,  March  28,  and  April  30,  1811.     (Ford),  ix. 

468  May  3,  1811. 

470  Enquirer,  May  21,  1811. 

471  Jefferson,  Writings    (Ford),  ix,  379. 


THE  SMITH  FACTION  169 

themselves  the  victims  of  intrigue,  and  as  conscientiously  they 
persuaded  themselves  that  in  the  course  they  pursued  lay  the 
path  of  duty  and  in  the  measures  they  suggested  the  safety  of 
the  nation.  The  letter  following472  is  of  interest  in  the  history 
of  the  imbroglio.  It  points  to  Gallatin  as  the  real  source  of 
trouble  and  exhibits  the  friendly  relations  between  Secretary 
Smith  and  the  Virginia  Senator. 

Wigwam  Virginia. 

July  5,  1811. 
"Dear  Sir, 

In  consequence  of  my  absence  from  home,  I  did  not 
receive  your  friendly  and  highly  valued  favor  of  the  18  ultimo, 
till  the  day  before  yesterday;  and  I  now  embrace  the  first 
opportunity  of  making  a  reply.  It  was  then  accompanyed  with 
your  public  vindication.  The  rupture  between  yourself 
and  Mr.  Madison,  has  been  a  subject  of  the  most  serious  regret 
to  me ;  but  not  a  surprise.  For  Mr.  Madison  I  have  long  felt 
the  warmest  friendship,  and  the  most  affectionate  regards ;  and 
since  his  elevation  to  the  presidential  chair;  it  has  been  a 
subject  of  the  most  painful  recollection  to  have  been  compelled 
to  see  him  the  sport  and  support  of  the  most  unprincipled  para 
sites,  and  the  dupe  of  the  most  wretched  intrigues.  However 
lamentable  the  fact  is,  it  has  been  too  obvious  to  be  denied  by 
his  most  partial  friends ;  and  I  have  for  some  time  intimated 
to  some  of  my  confidential  friends ;  that  republicanism  was  not 
safe  in  his  hands.  But  where  will  bhe  party  look  for  a  succes 
sor?  The  spirit  of  jealousy  and  rivalship,  will  defy  every  effort. 
The  nomination  of  Colo.  Monroe,  is  the  wickedest  of  all  his 
contrivances.  In  this  part  of  the  country,  it  will  not  get  him 
one  friend;  and  it  will  cause  him  many  opposers,  etc.,  etc.,  etc. 
I  think  you  have  taken  the  best  ground  in  your  vindication,  to 
tell  a  plain  unvarnished  tale ;  and  leave  the  public  to  make  the 
conclusions.  It  is  not  yet  sufficiently  in  circulation  here,  to  en 
able  me  to  form  any  estimate  of  its  effects;  but  I  should  sup 
pose,  that  they  can  but  be  highly  injurious  to  Mr.  Madison's 
standing,  etc.  As  far  as  Mr.  M's  late  acts  may  have  been 

*73MS.  in  possession  of  the  Historical  Society  of  Pennsylvania. 


170  WILLIAM  BRANCH  GILES 

intended  or  calculated  to  effect  myself;  it  is  matter  of  perfect 
indifference  to  me.  If  they  were  intended  to  produce  my  resig 
nation  ;  or  to  vary  my  course  of  public  conduct ;  or  to  intimidate 
me  into  an  acquiessence  in  measures,  I  disapprove ;  they  will  miss 
of  their  object.  Like  most  other  injudicious  expedients,  they 
may  produce  an  opposite  effect.  You  know  that  I  never  would 
accept  any  Executive  office;  I  feel  as  independent  in  my 
representative  character,  as  Mr.  M.  in  his  presidential  one; 
and  of  course  he  has  no  inducements  to  offer,  because  I  have  no 
wish  to  accept,  etc.,  etc.,  I  have  heretofore  withstood  many  buf- 
fettings  &  do  not  feel  less  competent  to  their  repulsion  now, 
than  heretofore.  But  of  this  enough.  So  far  as  respects  myself, 
I  regret  nothing  so  much  as  the  probable  absence  of  yourself  and 
Mrs.  Smith  from  the  city  during  the  next  session  of  Congress. 

Be  pleased  to  present  me  to  Mrs.  Smith  in  terms  of  the  most 
respectful  regards  &  believe  me  to  be  your  most  sincere  friend, 
etc. 

Wm.  B.  Giles" 
The  Honorable 

Mr.  Smith 


CHAPTER  XI 
THE  WAR  OF  1812:  TRIUMPHANT  INSURGENCY 

In  the  twelfth  Congress,  one  of  the  first  duties  which  Giles  had 
to  discharge  was  to  oppose  the  nomination  of  Monroe  for  the 
position  of  Secretary  of  State.  He  had,  at  one  time,  been  a  most 
ardent  friend  of  the  Secretary,  but  had  taken  active  part  in  the 
campaign  for  Madison  in  1808  and  industriously  endeavored 
to  discredit  the  ex-minister  to  England.  His  opposition  to 
Monroe  had  not  grown  less  as  his  antipathy  to  Madison  had 
sprung  up,  because  Monroe  had  displaced  his  friend,  was  a 
peace  man,  and  truckled  too  much  to  the  administration.  The 
reason  for  opposition,  however,  to  the  confirmation  of  his  nom 
ination  was  now,  according  to  Monroe,  a  "supposed  favoritism 
in  the  settlement  of  my  account  in  my  late  mission  to  Europe." 
The  nomination  was  referred  to  a  committee,  of  which  Giles 
was  chairman;  a  thorough  examination  of  the  charges  was 
made ;  and  Giles,  expressing  himself  as  satisfied,  drew  up  the  re 
port  in  exoneration  of  his  fellow  Virginian.473  This,  however,  did 
not  mean  a  cessation  of  attack  on  the  Secretary;  Monroe  was 
from  this  time  on  to  be  added  to  the  list  of  Giles's  enemies,  a 
list  almost  as  long  as  Mr.  John  Quincy  Adams  drew  up  of  his 
own  favorite  antipathies.474 

Congress  met,  on  the  call  of  the  President,  a  month  earlier 
than  usual.  It  is  a  gloomy  picture  which  on  November  5,  the 
Executive  unfolded  for  Congressional  examination.  Stubbornly 
assuming  that  the  French  decrees  had  been  repealed  by  Napo 
leon,  he  lamented  the  fact  that  England  had  not  abolished  her 
own — indeed  had  gone  so  far  as  to  threaten  retaliation  should 
we  continue  against  them  nonimportation.  "Indemnity  and 
redress  for  other  wrongs  have"  he  said,  "continued  to  be  with 
held,  and  our  coasts  and  the  mouths  of  our  harbors  have  again 
witnessed  scenes  not  less  derogatory  to  the  dearest  of  our 
national  rights  than  vexatious  to  the  regular  course  of  our 

*ra  Monroe,  Writings   (Hamilton)   v,  194:  Mass.  Hist.  Soc.  Proceedings, 
3rd  Series,  vol.  ii,    (letter  to  John  Taylor,   Nov.  30,   1813.) 
474  Memoirs,  ix,  263. 


172  WILLIAM  BRANCH  GILES 

trade."  Then  followed  a  reference  to  the  affair  of  the  Presi 
dent  and  The  Little  Belt  in  the  preceding  May.  Despite  the  in 
sistence  that  France  had  repealed  her  decrees,  the  relations  of 
our  country  with  that  nation,  as  the  President  described  them, 
were  far  from  satisfactory.  She  had  given  no  proof  "of  an  inten 
tion  to  repair  the  other  wrongs  done  to  the  United  States,"  she 
had  failed  to  indemnify  us  for  seizures  of  our  property,  and 
had  placed  "rigorous  and  unexpected  restrictions"  on  our  trade. 

While  no  friendship  was  expressed  for  France,  the  burden  of 
the  appeal  of  the  message  was  against  the  hostile  acts  of  Eng 
land  and  it  was  with  particular  reference  to  her  that  the  follow 
ing  warlike  paragraph  occurred :  "With  this  evidence  of  hostile 
inflexibility  in  trampling  on  rights  which  no  independent  nation 
can  relinquish,  Congress  will  feel  the  duty  of  putting  the  United 
States  into  an  armor  and  an  attitude  demanded  by  the  crisis, 
and  corresponding  with  the  national  spirit  and  expectations." 
He  then  recommended  provision  for  "filling  the  ranks  and 
prolonging  the  enlistment  of  the  regular  troops,"  and  for  the 
acceptance  of  volunteers.  Again  the  paragraph  with  reference 
to  naval  preparations  was  vague  enough  to  warrant  any  inter 
pretation  one  might  put  upon  it.*75 

The  message  seemed  to  breathe  war  against  England  and 
there  were  those  in  Congress  who  rejoiced  in  their  hearts  at  the 
words  of  the  peace-loving  president,  and  who  determined  they 
would  permit  no  retreat  from  that  position.  Henry  Clay,  the 
speaker,  Peter  B.  Porter,  Chairman  of  the  Committee  on  For 
eign  Relations,  and  the  two  other  members  of  that  committee 
most  important,  John  C.  Calhoun  and  Felix  Grundy,  and  a 
group  of  the  young  and  enthusiastic  members  from  the  south 
and  west,  Indian  fighters,  interior  men,  small  farmers,  had  no 
intention  of  adjourning  this  session  of  Congress  until  they  had 
heard  a  declaration  of  war.  They  had  seen  war  postponed 
from  year  to  year;  commercial  regulations,  embargoes,  non- 
intercourse,  Macon  bills,  proclamations  had  come  and  gone  and 
a  settlement  of  the  troubled  foreign  relations  of  the  United 
States  was  still  in  the  distance.  Ever  since  the  Chesapeake 

*7B  Richardson,  Messages  and  Papers,  1,  491. 


WAR  OF  1812 :   TRIUMPHANT  INSURGENCY  173 

outrage,  insistent  Republicans,  such  as  they,  had  demanded 
strong  measures  against  the  mother  country.  But  one  peace 
ful  President,  admitting  that  the  country  had  never  as  in  1807 
been  so  stirred  since  Lexington,  had  thought  one  war  enough 
for  the  life  of  one  man  and  preferred  to  teach  Europe  the 
effectiveness  of  commercial  retaliation.  Another  Republican 
President  had  come — a  President  elected  partly  by  Federalist 
votes,  praised  by  them  as  a  national  and  not  a  party  President, 
put  in  office  for  the  distinct  purpose  of  paying  the  national 
debt  and  constitutionally  opposed  to  strong  measures.  A  war 
party  of  western  men  inspired  chiefly  by  their  expansionist 
feeling,  by  their  resentment  of  Canadian  monopoly  of  the  fur 
trade,  and  by  British  policies  toward  the  savage  tribes,  had  been 
formed  as  early  as  1809,  and  to  it  belonged  also  radical,  expan 
sionist,  malcontent  politicians  of  the  east.  Clay  and  his  fron 
tiersmen  found  ready  response  in  the  hearts  of  Ritchie,  Roane, 
Nicholas.  To  this  party,  Giles  belonged  by  temperament  and 
accident.  Newspapers  had  supported  them  and  every  new 
aggression  had  given  them  argument.  Now  they  were  in  the 
saddle.  The  election,  as  prophesied,  had  resulted  in  the  retire 
ment  of  many  conservative  statesmen,  and  insurgents  had  now 
their  opportunity.  Western  Tennessee,  western  New  York, 
western  Pennsylvania,  Kentucky,  upper  South  Carolina,  Indian 
fighters  and  warhawks,  for  the  first  time  were  to  control  the  na 
tion.  No  time  was  to  be  lost.  They  seized  the  reins  of  authority 
in  the  House;  chose  Clay  speaker  on  his  first  day  of  service  in 
the  House,  and  Clay  placed  his  biggest  warhawks  on  the  Com 
mittee  on  Foreign  Affairs.478  Porter  of  New  York,  the  chair 
man,  on  November  29,  in  his  report,  gave  the  keynote  of  the 
session  when  he  said,  "the  period  has  arrived,  when,  in  the 
opinion  of  your  committee,  it  is  the  sacred  duty  of  Congress  to 
call  forth  the  patriotism  and  resourses  of  the  country,"  and,  in" 
the  words  of  the  President  himself,  recommended  "that  the 
United  States  be  put  into  an  armor  and  attitude  demanded  by 

478  For  an  account  of  the  rise  of  this  war  party,  see  in  Am.  Hist.  As 
sociation  Report  for  1911,  a  paper  by  the  present  writer  on  "The  Insurgents 
of  1811." 


174  WILLIAM  BRANCH  GILES 

the  crisis,  and  corresponding  with  the  national  spirit  and  expec 
tations."*77 

The  House  proceeded  to  discuss  the  report  and  resolutions 
of  the  committee.  The  Senate,  in  the  meantime,  had  not  been  idle. 
Giles,  as  usual,  had  been  put  at  the  head  of  the  Foreign  Rela 
tions  Committee,478  despite  his  break  with  the  administration. 
He  had  been  a  warhawk  since  the  passage  of  his  enforcement  bill 
in  1809.  He  had  been  steadily  pleading  for  energy  of  action 
and  bemoaning  the  feebleness  of  our  councils.  He  demanded 
larger  preparation  for  the  war,  which  he  believed  would  come, 
than  the  administration  then  desired,  determined  apparently  as 
were  now  Clay,  Calhoun  and  Grundy  to  force  the  hand  of 
Madison  and  Gallatin.  He  had  already  glanced  with  covetous 
eyes  on  the  British  possessions  in  the  north,  deeming  them  a 
proper  indemnity  for  all  our  expense  and  trouble.  Now  his 
time  had  come  and  he  intended  not  to  waste  the  opportunity, 
even  if  he  did  propose  inroads  on  the  cherished  financial  collec 
tions  of  the  Treasury.  By  December  the  9th,  his  report  was 
ready,  four  bills  had  been  prepared  and  were  now  read  in  the 
Senate.479  One  bill  called  for  the  raising  of  twenty-five  thous 
and  men  for  five  years'  service ;  this  was  fifteen  thousand  more 
men  than  the  President  desired.  The  bill,  therefore,  met  serious 
opposition  in  the  Senate  on  the  ground  that  so  many  troops 
could  not  be  raised  in  time  for  the  expected  invasion  of  Canada 
in  May.  The  adherents  of  the  administration,  therefore,  en 
deavored  to  secure  an  amendment  to  the  bill  reducing  the  num 
ber  of  troops  provided  for  from  twenty-five  to  ten  thousand.  On 
this  proposal,  Giles  spoke  December  17  in  defence  of  his  bill. 

Hurling  at  the  administration  its  own  call  for  strong  meas 
ures,  he  declared  he  understood  that  portion  of  the  message  to 
mean  "that  all  the  inefficient  measures,  which  have  been  adopted 
in  relation  to  the  belligerents  for  three  years  past,  had  not 
answered  the  expectations  of  their  projectors;  but,  instead 
of  the  expected  recession,  had  producd,  on  the  part  of  Great 
Britain  at  least,  inflexible  hostility."  The  President  now  called 

477  Annals,  Twelfth  Cong.,  Part  I,  373-377. 

478  Journal  of  the   Senate,   22. 

479  Annals,  Twelfth  Cong.,  Part  I,  29  and  30. 


WAR  OF  1812 :   TRIUMPHANT  INSURGENCY  175 

for  adequate  measures  and  properly  left  the  exact  number  of 
the  forces  required  to  Congress.  The  Committee  had  taken 
into  consideration  the  whole  situation,  both  the  possible 
demands  in  the  southwest  and  the  demands  in  the  north  and  had 
provided  for  a  force  no  larger  than  adequate  for  the  purposes 
of  government.  The  provision  of  only  ten  thousand  desired  by 
friends  of  the  administration  would  convince  England  that  we 
were  "joking"  about  war,  would  be  "as  much  trifling  with  the 
energies  of  the  nation,  as  inefficient  commercial  restrictions  had 
heretofore  been  trifling  with  the  character  and  interests  of  the 
nation,  and  he  feared  a  war  dictated  by  the  same  unfortunate 
imbecile  spirit  and  policy."  Why  were  men  thus  feeble?  Be 
cause  of  the  decrepit  state  of  the  Treasury.  But  that  was  not 
the  previous  language  of  the  Department;  the  Secretary  had 
told  us  there  would  be  "an  economy  in  furnishing  means 
sufficient  to  effect  your  objects."  Doing  less  meant  "prodigal 
waste  and  profusion  of  economy."  This  was  also  Giles's 
opinion. 

Following  this  shrewd  thrust  came  an  attack  on  the  Secre 
tary.  On  the  subject  of  the  splendid  financial  talents  of  that 
gentleman,  which  were  so  much  vaunted,  he  was  not  slow  to  ex 
press  himself,  for  he  preferred  to  see  facts  rather  than  hear 
much  rumor  and  anticipation.  But  the  Secretary,  said  his 
friends,  had  never  had  a  proper  field  of  activity;  then,  said 
Giles,  give  him  scope  for  action.  As  for  the  past,  he  believed, 
"that  all  the  measures  which  have  dishonored  the  nation  during 
the  same  time  (the  last  three  years)  are,  in  a  great  degree,  at 
tributable  to  the  indisposition  of  the  late  and  the  present  Admin 
istration  to  press  on  the  Treasury  Department,  and  to  disturb 
the  popularity  and  repose  of  the  gentleman  at  the  head  of  it." 
To  him  was  due  the  inexecution  of  the  embargo,480  and  the 
failure  to  adopt  more  energetic  measures  in  its  place. 

To  one  other  interesting  topic,  Giles  gave  attention  in  this 
speech.  When  gentlemen  imputed  to  him  a  wish  to  bring  about 
war,  did  they  think  he  was  "blind  to  his  own  interests,"  or  "the 
interests  of  those  inhabiting  the  same  scene  of  country  with 

480  This,  of  course,  was  not  a  fact.  Gallatin  had  drafted  Giles's  bill 
of  January  9,  1809. 


176  WILLIAM  BRANCH  GILES 

himself?"  Peace  and  commercial  freedom  was  to  their  interest. 
They  exported  grain  and  that  article  was  always  in  demand  in 
England  and  drew  high  prices.  No,  he  and  his  people  did  not 
desire  war,  but  they  desired  "preparation  to  meet  unavoidable 
war."481 

The  speech  above  described  was  vituperative  —  was  by  no 
means  an  admirable  production  of  oratory.  But  that  it  de 
serves  the  description  accorded  to  it  by  Mr.  Henry  Adams, 
whose  bete  noire  Giles  appears  through  every  volume  of  Adams's 
works  to  be,  as  "unparalleled  in  American  history"  for 
the  "malignity  of  the  human  mind,"482  cannot  be  defended.  The 
oratory  of  Charles  Sumner,  for  instance,  and  the  Diary  of  John 
Quincy  Adams,  if  not  characterized  by  malignity  of  the  human 
mind,  are  redolent  of  expressions  whose  bitterness  Giles  could 
not  surpass.  Giles  was  bitter,  characteristically  so,  and  his 
bitterness  was  inexcusable,  on  this  and  many  other  occasions, 
but  bitterness  is  a  product  of  no  age  or  section  —  it  appears  in 
any  vigorous  debate  and  in  most  family  biographies  and  sec 
tional  histories. 

Giles's  bill  passed  the  Senate  December  19.  Twenty-one 
Senators  voted  against  substituting  ten  thousand  for  the  twen 
ty-five  thousand  soldiers  required  by  the  bill.483  The  House, 
which  had  now  already  passed  Porter's  resolutions,  took  up  on 
December  31,  Giles's  bill.  The  House  Committee  cut  down  the 
number  of  additional  troops  proposed  in  the  bill  from  twenty- 
five  thousand  to  fifteen  thousand.  However,  in  the  House,  the 
sentiment  was  in  accord  with  Giles  that  a  large  army  was  neces 
sary.  Clay  declared  "in  measures  relating  to  war  it  is  wisest, 
if  you  err  at  all,  to  err  on  the  side  of  the  largest  force."434  Rob 
ert  Wright  of  Maryland  said  "our  country  was  too  important, 
and  our  rights  too  sacred,  to  be  frittering  down  measures  for 
their  defence  in  the  manner  proposed."485  Troup  of  Georgia  de 
clared  if  we  did  not  want  tweny-five  thousand  men,  we  did  not 


the  speech  see  Annals. 
482  Quoting  G.  W.  Campbell—  Adams,  U.  S.,  vi,  151. 
^Annals,  84. 
484  Annals,  597. 
^Annals,  608. 


WAR  OF  1812 :  TRIUMPHANT  INSURGENCY  177 

want  one  man.486  Calhoun  thought,  "We  ought  to  submit,  or 
make  energetic  defence.  He  perceived  that  the  public  sentiment 
began  already  to  doubt  whether  Congress  was  really  in  earnest, 
from  the  tardiness  of  their  movements."487  The  vote  taken 
January  6  showed  ninety-four  members  of  the  House  for  the 
large  force  as  against  34  for  the  less,  most  of  the  Virginia  dele 
gation  voting  for  the  larger  number.  The  House  had,  however, 
so  amended  the  bill  as  to  diminish  the  number  of  officers  immedi 
ately  to  be  appointed.48*  But,  when  the  Senate  insisted,  the 
House  yielded,  and  Giles's  bill  became  law.48£ 

One  measure  looking  to  war  had,  therefore,  been  passed.  On 
December  26,  Porter  introduced  a  bill  into  the  House  author 
izing  the  President  "to  accept  and  organize  certain  volunteer 
military  corps"  not  exceeding  fifty  thousand  men  to  be  enlisted 
for  one  year.  After  much  argument  on  the  constitutionality 
of  authorizing  the  President  to  accept  volunteers  for  possible 
service  out  of  the  country,  the  House  passed  the  measure.  This 
time,  however,  Giles  and  the  young  warhawks  parted  company. 
On  January  29,  1812,  he  spoke  in  the  Senate  against  the  bill. 
He  believed  the  war  would  have  to  be  conducted  with  regular 
troops;  for  that  reason,  he  had  carried  through  Congress  the 
bill  requiring  twenty-five  thousand  additional  troops.  The 
present  proposal  would  involve  a  useless  expense  on  the  Treas 
ury,  and  would  place  at  the  disposal  of  the  President  an  author 
ity  that  was  purely  nominal.  The  volunteer  laws  had  not  been 
successful  and  there  were  insuperable  obstacles  in  the  way  of 
raising  such  a  volunteer  force  as  the  bill  required — one  of 
militia  companies  instead  of  individuals  recruited  directly  by 
officers  authorized  for  the  purpose.  It  is  interesting  to  see 
William  B.  Giles,  once  so  stern  an  enemy  to  anything  bearing 
resemblance  to  a  regular  army,  now  energetically  defending 
both  the  constitutionality  and  expediency  of  such  a  force.  It 
is  also  interesting  to  see  an  old  Republican,  formerly  so  narrow 
in  constitutional  interpretation  and  later  to  be  of  the  same 

^Annals,  616. 

*"  Annals,  616. 

488  Annals,  609. 

490  Annals,  718,  97;  Act  approved  January  11,  1812. 


178  WILLIAM  BRANCH  GILES 

spirit,  defending  the  constitutionality,  though  not  the  desir 
ability,  of  employing  the  militia  for  service  in  a  foreign  state. 
Since  the  Republican  victory  of  1800,  under  the  pressure  of 
the  measures  demanded  for  the  promotion  of  the  policies  of 
Jefferson,  only  one  trace  of  the  old  strict  construction  spirit 
remained  in  the  distinguished  Virginia  senator,  and  that  was 
the  inveterate  hosility  to  a  National  Bank  whenever  and  how 
ever  presented.  Now  with  him  it  was  always  energy,  the  use  of 
the  powers  of  government  in  meeting  insurrection  at  home  and 
aggression  abroad,  for  which  he  zealously  pleaded.  Inconsist 
ency,  however,  is  the  statesman's  privilege;  James  Madison, 
James  Monroe,  Henry  Clay,  and  John  C.  Calhoun  had  illus 
trated  the  principle  or  were  to  do  so  in  the  future. 

Not  the  least  entertaining  portion  of  this  interesting  speech 
is  the  citation  of  a  distinguished  authority  by  whom  to  substan 
tiate  Giles's  views  in  opposition  to  volunteer  forces  and  short 
enlistments.  This  authority  was  no  other  than  George  Wash 
ington  himself  and  the  citations  were  to  the  famous  life  by 
the  distinguished  Chief  Justice.  Giles  admitted  that  in  his 
youthful  political  days  when  he  "was  surrounded  by  visionary 
theories,  and  had  had  little  experience"  he  had  doubted  the 
superiority  of  Washington  as  a  statesman;  but  now  the  Sen 
ator  confessed  that  "a  more  intimate  acquaintance  with  his 
character  and  his  measures;  further  information  and  reflec 
tion;  and  practical  experience  of  more  than  twenty  years,  had 
completely  convinced  him  of  the  superiority  of  the  talent  of 
this  great  man  as  a  statesman  as  well  as  a  soldier,"  and  had 
also  admonished  him  of  his  former  errors.  While  he  could  not 
"subscribe  to  all  the  measures  of  his  administration,  yet,  take 
him  for  all  in  all,"  he  feared  "we  shall  ne'er  see  his  like  again." 
With  this  apology  for  "former  errors,"  the  orator  proceeded  to 
quote  at  length  from  Marshall  and  Washington  on  the  impos 
sibility  of  relying  on  an  "individual  patriotism"  and  "tem 
porary  armies."4  There  were,  however,  few  to  agree  with 

490  The  speech  is  given  in  full  in  Annals  for  the  first  session,  part  ii, 
Appendix,  1693. 


WAR  or  1812:   TRIUMPHANT  INSURGENCY  179 

Giles  on  this  occasion,  even  though  George  Washington  was  his 
reliance — and  the  Volunteer  bill  became  a  law.491 

An  additional  force  of  regulars  had  been  authorized,  author 
ity  for  the  enlistment  of  volunteers  given,  but  the  defence  on 
water  remained  unprovided  for.  As  early  as  December  17, 
Langdon  Cheves  of  South  Carolina,  chairman  of  the  Committee 
on  Naval  Affairs  and  a  new  order  of  Republican,  had  made  a 
report  to  the  House  and  presented  a  bill.492  Exactly  one  month 
later,  this  bill  came  up  for  discussion  and  was  defended  by  him 
against  the  errors  and  prejudices  of  his  Republican  brethren, 
who  had  not  forgotten  their  position  in  1798.  The  committee 
called  for  the  building  of  twelve  seventy-fours  and  twenty  frig 
ates.  The  House  struck  out  the  provision  for  the  building  of 
the  frigates,493  and  sent  the  bill  over  to  the  Senate.  On  the  21st 
of  February,  Giles  reported  the  bill  with  amendments.  His 
speech  on  the  subject  is  not  given;  though,  from  the  speeches 
that  follow,  we  know  that  it  was  in  defence  of  the  navy  on  the 
one  hand  and  of  the  record  of  Giles  on  the  other.494  The  Fed 
eralists  were  pleased  with  the  speech;  the  administration 
leaders  were  not.  On  the  subject  of  the  navy,  we  have  seen  on 
frequent  occasions  that,  since  the  Revolution  of  1800,  Giles  had 
accepted  this  portion  of  the  Federalist  programme  of  energy 
so  heartily  condemned  in  former  years.  Smith,  Giles,  and  the 
Federalists  failed  in  their  attempt  to  incorporate  the  section, 
rejected,  as  we  recall,  by  the  House,  providing  for  the  building 
of  frigates.  An  act  was  finally  passed  authorizing  the  Presi 
dent  to  repair  and  put  in  service  only  the  frigates  Chesapeake, 
Constellation,  and  Adams,  and  giving  him  only  three  hundred 
thousand  dollars  for  that  purpose.495 

Before  the  approval  of  this  bill,  it  became  apparent  that  war 
was  inevitable.  On  November  7,  1811,  had  occurred  an  event 
very  significant  for  westerners  and  expansionists — Harrison's 
campaign  on  the  Wabash.  By  it  was  afforded  just  the  needed 

491  Act  of  February  6,  1812. 
483  Annals,    553. 

493  Annals,  986. 

494  See  Speeches  of  Lloyd  and  Crawford,  Annals,  145,  149. 
496  Act  approved  March  30,  1812,  1st  section. 


180  WILLIAM  BRANCH  GILES 

opportunity  to  emphasize  the  necessity  of  the  conquest  of 
Canada  for  the  purpose  of  securing  our  frontiers  and  smooth 
ing  the  way  for  our  westward  advance.  Events  piled  one  on 
another  during  the  spring  of  1812.  On  March  9,  the  President 
submitted  to  Congress  the  John  Henry  correspondence,  reveal 
ing  the  activities  of  a  British  agent  in  New  England  in  1809. 49( 
The  ever  watchful  insurgents  failed  not  to  see  the  connection 
between  intrigues  from  Canada  in  New  England  and  intrigues 
with  the  Indians  of  the  west  from  the  same  quarter.  An  ink 
ling  of  the  serious  nature  of  Foster's  warlike  instructions  dated 
January  28  soon  stirred  the  capital  city.497  Two  days  later 
came  news  confirmatory  of  all  fears  as  to  Napoleon's  ignomin 
ious  duplicity  and  the  days  that  followed  brought  information 
only  of  an  inflammatory  nature.  Something  indicative  of  an 
intention  to  recognize  the  gravity  of  the  situation  must  cer 
tainly  be  done;  on  March  15,  Henry  Clay  laid  before  the  Pres 
ident  a  warlike  programme  and  let  it  be  understood  that  Presi 
dential  action  was  expected.49*  So  on  April  1,  Madison  ad 
dressed  to  Congress  a  brief  message  recommending  an  embargo 
of  sixty  days.499  In  the  House  a  bill  providing  for  an  embargo 
was  passed  the  same  day  by  a  vote  of  70  to  41  ;50()  in  the  Senate, 
without  division,  the  period  was  extended  by  the  Peace  men  from 
sixty  to  ninety  days  and  the  bill  was  then  carried  by  twenty  to 
thirteen.  Giles,  Smith,  and  the  Federalists  voted  in  the  neg 
ative.  The  House  concurred  with  the  Senate.501  The  President 
could  only  complain  and  explain  ;502  aside  from  the  opportunity 
afforded  for  the  return  of  the  New  England  ships  before  a 
declaration  of  war,  the  amendment  made  little  or  no  difference. 
From  the  middle  of  April  to  June,  little  was  done  by  Con 
gress.  The  Senate  actually  adopted  a  joint  resolution  provid 
ing  for  the  adjournment  of  Congress  from  the  29th  of  April 

499Annals. 

487  Adams,  U.  S.,  vi,  191. 

^Monroe  Papers,  Library  of  Congress. 

499  Richardson,   Messages    and   Papers,   i,   499. 

600  Annals,  1598. 

601  Ibid,  1614.  j 

602  Adams,  U.  S.,  vi.  203. 


WAR  OF  1812:   TRIUMPHANT  INSURGENCY  181 

to  the  8th  of  June.501  Only  eight  votes  more  in  the  House  would 
have  authorized  a  recess,  but  these  could  not  be  secured.504 
However,  members  who  desired  to  go  home  to  see  their  families 
did  so.  Among  these  was  Giles  who  had  voted  against  the 
resolution  for  adjournment.  He  seems  to  have  been  absent 
during  the  month  of  May,  not,  however,  without  observation. 
One,  Thomas  Ritchie,  mighty  in  Virginia,  more  than  usual, 
observant  of  everything  and  everybody,  had  never  ceased 
to  watch  the  senior  senator  from  Virginia,  a  free-lance 
in  Virginia  politics.  On  the  22nd  of  May,  in  a  series  of  letters 
published  under  the  general  title  "Letters  from  the  Simple  to 
the  Great,"  appeared  in  the  Enquirer  an  article  addressed  to 
"The  Honorable  William  B.  Giles  (now  at  home)."505  General 
dissatisfaction  was  expressed  by  Mr.  Ritchie  with  the  career  of 
Giles  during  the  Madison  administration  and  particular  dis 
pleasure  was  shown  at  his  retirement  at  this  crisis  in  his  coun 
try's  history.  Giles  was  back,  however,  in  time  to  give  his 
votes  on  the  important  subject  to  be  acted  on  in  June.  Was  it 
more  than  a  coincidence  that,  during  this  period  of  absence,  the 
Republican  caucus  met  and  nominated  James  Madison  as  the 
Republican  candidate  for  President?506 

The  country,  meanwhile,  had  been  expressing  itself  on  the 
subject  of  war.  Memorials  and  petitions  had  been  coming  to 
Congress  for  several  months;  those  from  the  north  usually 
deprecating  that  probable  event ;  those  from  the  south  approv 
ing  the  measures  of  government  and  calling  for  the  final  arbitra 
ment  of  this  tangled  question  of  our  foreign  relations.  Virginia, 
as  early  as  January  25,  had  spoken.  Reciting  the  sufferings 
of  our  injured  country,  the  memorial  declared  that  Great  Bri 
tain  had  already  made  war  upon  us  "of  the  most  aggravated 
species,"  that  "a  further  indulgence  of  hope  is  allied  with  dis 
grace,  and  forbearance  becomes  criminal."  Resolving  that,  "the 
period  has  now  arrived  when  peace,  as  we  now  have  it,  is  dis 
graceful,  and  war  is  honorable,"  they  pledged  for  the  "support 

503  Annals,  (April  25)  216. 

504  Ibid,   (April  25)    1342. 
M5  Enquirer,  May  22,  1812. 
806  May  12. 


182  WILLIAM  BRANCH  GILES 

of  the  character  and  dignity  of  the  Government  ., 
our  lives,  our  fortunes,  and  our  sacred  honor."507  On  June  12, 
Giles  presented  a  long  memorial  from  many  citizens  of  Rich 
mond  and  Manchester,  "deprecating  the  calamities  of  war,  but 
expressing  their  opinion  that,  if  peace  cannot  be  procured  with 
honor,  and  war  is  inevitable,  it  ought  to  be  declared,  not  against 
Great  Britain  only,  but  against  Great  Britain  and  France."508 
The  opinion  of  the  state  had  been  expressed  in  the  resolutions 
above  cited,  but  the  Richmond-Manchester  resolutions  would 
indicate  that  even  Virginia  was  not  a  unit  as  to  the  course  to  be 
pursued.  This  impression  is  further  confirmed  by  a  petition 
from  Jefferson  County,  in  the  northwestern  part  of  the  state, 
disapproving  the  measures  of  government  tending  to  war,  and 
praying  the  removal  of  commercial  restrictions."  In  fact,  the 
opposition  of  the  interior  counties  of  Virginia  to  the  War  of 
1812  was  excelled  only  by  that  of  the  New  England  Federal 
ists."5  In  Congress,  the  Tidewater  Quids  and  Valley  Federal 
ists  lent  valuable  support  to  the  New  England  opposition. 

There  was,  however,  no  use  to  protest,  nor  could  the  Presi 
dent  hope  for  peace;  projects  for  a  new  mission  would  not  be 
palatable  to  Clay  and  his  friends,  and  their  support  was  neces 
sary  for  any  successful  measure,  as  well  as  for  the  election  of  a 
President  in  the  winter  of  1812.  On  June  1,  the  President  sent 
to  Congress  a  long  message  reciting  all  of  our  grievances  and 
recommending  to  the  immediate  consideration  by  Congress  the 
question  of  declaration  of  war.51(  In  the  House,  the  message 
was  referred  to  the  Committee  on  Foreign  Relations  and,  in  two 
days,  Calhoun  presented  a  masterly  report  reciting  our  griev 
ances  against  Great  Britain  since  1804  and  a  bill  declaring  war. 
The  bill  passed  on  June  4,  79  to  49 — four  Virginians  led  by 
John  Randolph  voted  nay.511  In  the  Senate,  the  efforts  of  the 
opposition  to  the  administration  programme  were  of  two  kinds. 

50T  Annals,  Twelfth  Congress,  1st  Sess.,  112. 

508  Ibid,    259.    Another    Richmond-Manchester    petition    was    presented 
June  12,  (p.  1482)  praying  for  war  against  Great  Britain. 
^Ambler,  Sectionalism  in  Virginia,  92-93. 

610  Richardson,  Messages  and  Papers,  1,  499. 

611  Annals,  1637. 


WAR  OF  1812 :   TRIUMPHANT  INSURGENCY  183 

Federalists  were  opposed  to  war  against  either  power  and  en 
deavored  to  postpone  action  on  the  subject.51"  In  this  effort 
they  were  not  assisted  by  Giles.  He  was  allied,  however,  with 
the  Federalist  party  in  their  attempt  to  secure  an  amendment 
authorizing  the  issuance  of  letters  of  marque  and  reprisal 
against  both  England  and  France.01*  When  this  was  defeated, 
Giles  joined  his  Republican  brethren  in  the  vote  for  declara 
tion  of  war.514  The  act,  as  finally  approved,  declared  war, 
authorized  the  use  of  the  whole  land  and  naval  force  of  the 
United  States  to  carry  it  into  effect,  and  gave  the  President 
power  to  issue  letters  of  marque  and  reprisal  to  private  armed 
ships,  "against  the  vessels,  goods,  and  effects  of  the  United 
Kingdom  of  Great  Britain  and  Ireland,  and  the  subjects  there 
of."515  Those,  who,  like  Giles,  saw  no  better  reason  for  war 
against  England  than  with  France,  may  have  been  perfectly 
right  from  the  point  of  view  of  theory,516  but  Jefferson,  too, 
was  right  when  he  characterized  their  desire  to  punish  both 
nations  at  the  same  time  as  a  piece  of  sublimated  impartiality. 
Whip  one  enemy  at  a  time  is  a  common  sense  programme  for  all 
nations  as  well  as  for  individuals ;  and  it  would  seem  wise  to  fight 
first  that  one  against  whom  it  is  easiest  to  secure  support, 
against  whom  we  could  most  easily  make  war,  and  from  whom, 
in  case  of  success,  we  could  exact  a  precious  indemnity.511  The 
South  and  West  had  brought  on  the  war ;  the  South  and  West 
had  chosen  war  against  Great  Britain;  the  South  and  West 
wanted  Canada,  the  fur  trade,  a  free  hand  with  the  Indians,  as 
well  as  assertion  of  our  national  spirit.  New  England  would 
have  allowed  our  grievances  against  England  to  have  gone 
unavenged.  South  of  the  Potomac  and  west  of  the  Alleghenies, 
men  rejoiced  at  the  opportunity  to  reap  "a  new  harvest  of 
political  and  national  glory." 

612  Annals,  284,  296. 
6U  Ibid,  297. 

614  Ibid,  297. 

615  Act  approved  June  18,  1812. 

518  Madison  himself  had  contemplated  war  with  both  powers  but  decided 
that  such  a  course  was  impracticable.  Hunt's  Madison,  326. 

617  John  Howe  in  1808  heard  everybody  talking  such  language,  Am.  Hist. 
Review,  17:  342,  354. 


184  WILLIAM  BRANCH  GILES 

Congress  proceeded,  after  the  declaration  of  war,  to  make 
financial  provision  for  its  efficiency.  In  this  work,  the  much 
despised  Senate  showed  a  willingness  to  cooperate.  On  the  26th, 
it  passed  the  act  authorizing  the  issue  of  five  million  dollars  m 
Treasury  notes.518  For  this  appropriation,  Giles  voted,  though 
he  gave  his  voice  against  the  bill  authorizing  additional  duties 
on  imports,519  probably  because  it  failed  to  reimpose  a  duty  on 
salt,  in  which  he  claimed  to  be  much  interested.  Bills  provid 
ing  for  defence  were  passed  and  Congress,  having  done  its 
work,  adjourned  July  6th. 

B18Act   approved   July    1,    1812. 
519  Annals,  311. 


CHAPTER  XII 
"PUTTING  CLAWS  ON  GALLATIN" 

During  the  recess  of  Congress,  important  military  events 
took  place.  Rushing  foward  with  the  ardor  of  Crusaders  to 
seize  the  long  coveted  prize,  our  ardent  westerners  had,  under 
Hull,  surrendered  American  territory.  Defeat  and  failures  had 
met  our  young  army  at  almost  every  step.  Van  Rennselaer  was 
defeated  at  Queenstown  Heights,  Smyth  and  Dearborn  had 
made  only  feeble  efforts  to  invade  Canada  from  the  east.  Our 
little  navy,  on  which  small  reliance  had  been  placed  by  the  ad 
ministration,  had  won  all  the  laurels  of  the  campaign.  The 
biographer  of  Giles  cannot  refrain  from  adding,  so  great  has 
been  the  severity  of  criticism  directed  against  his  conduct  in 
preceding  years,  that  the  five  months  of  war  experienced  before 
Congress  met  in  its  second  session,  had  justified  his  reliance  on 
regular  troops,  his  antipathy  to  a  militia,  and  his  new  belief  in 
the  necessity  of  a  capable  navy. 

The  second  session  began  November  2,  six  days  before 
the  second  election  of  Madison  to  the  Presidency.  In  his 
message,  the  President  gave  a  brief  recital  of  military  events  in 
as  favorable  a  manner  as  possible ;  and  recommended  measures 
for  the  increased  efficiency  of  the  army — larger  pay  for  pri 
vates,  additional  general  officers,  an  enlargement  of  the  navy.520 
The  report  of  the  Secretary  of  the  Treasury  recommended  a 
loan  of  twenty  million  dollars.  The  adoption  of  measures  in 
harmony  with  these  recommendations  was  the  programme  out 
lined  for  Congress ;  Congress,  more  obediently  than  usual,  pro 
ceeded  to  carry  out  the  programme. 

Our  discussion  of  the  proceedings  of  this  session  must  be 
brief  because  the  Senate  debates  are  not  reported.  Giles's  active 
participation  in  the  discussion  of  the  measures  considered  is 
plain  from  a  reading  of  the  Journal  of  daily  proceedings.  He 
was,  however,  without  much  ado,  ousted  from  the  Committee  on 
Foreign  Relations,  and  was  given  no  prominent  committee 

820  Richardson,    Messages   and    Papers,   1,   514. 


186  WILLIAM  BRANCH  GILES 

chairmanship,521  though  he  was  responsible  for  the  initiation  of 
many  prominent  acts.  Very  little  but  his  votes  on  important 
measures  can  be  given. 

The  first  act  to  be  passed  was  one  for  the  increase  of  the 
pay  of  noncommissioned  officers  and  privates.  No  material 
opposition  developed  against  it  in  the  Senate,  and  Giles  voted 
with  the  majority.522  No  trouble,  also,  was  found  over  the  pas 
sage  of  the  act  to  increase  the  navy  of  the  United  States.  It 
provided  that,  as  soon  as  possible,  four  ships  of  seventy-four 
guns  and  six  of  forty-four  should  be  built.523  Only  two  Sena 
tors,  Messrs.  Crawford  of  Georgia  and  Turner  of  North 
Carolina,  were  in  opposition.52'  Giles  rejoiced  to  be  able 
to  give  it  his  sanction  and  to  receive  by  its  enactment  a 
justification  of  a  number  of  his  previous  votes  and  speeches. 
Before  the  end  of  the  year,  however,  he  had  found  opportu 
nity  to  thwart  the  will  of  the  Secretary  of  Treasury  by 
securing  the  passage  of  the  act  directing  the  Secretary  to  remit 
fines,  forfeitures,  and  penalties  in  the  case  of  those  of  our 
citizens  who,  between  June  23,  the  day  when  British  orders 
were  repealed,  and  September  15th,  the  day  when  news  of 
the  declaration  of  war  was  given  out  in  England,  had  set 
sail  with  cargoes  from  English  ports  with  the  expectation  that 
the  repeal  of  English  orders  on  June  23  would  operate  to 
repeal  our  non-intercourse  with  Great  Britain.525  The  ships, 
on  their  arrival,  had  been  seized  and,  according  to  law,  half 
of  the  proceeds  of  sale  should  go  to  the  collectors  and  half  to 
the  Government.520  An  entire  confiscation  seemed  unjust  as 
the  captain  appeared  to  have  acted  in  good  faith.  On  the 
other  hand,  by  the  sale  of  their  cargoes,  they  had  gained  an 
artificial  profit  resulting  from  another  act  of  the  Government, 
the  act  declaring  war;  the  duties  collected  were  by  no  means 
proportionate  to  the  advantage  secured  to  the  importers ;  and, 

^Journals  of  the  Senate,  Twelfth   Cong.,  2nd  Sess.,  27. 

623  December  1.     Act  approved  December  12,  1812. 

628  Act  approved  January  2,  1813. 

644  December  14,  1812. 

K5According  to  our  act  of  March  2,  1811. 

628  See  Act,  March  21,   1809, 


"PUTTING  CLAWS  ON  GAI/LATIN"  187 

besides,  the  Government  was  in  desperate  straits  for  money.521 
Madison  had,  in  his  message,  left  the  matter  to  Congress  with 
the  exhortation  that  they  consult  both  "equitable  considera 
tions"  and  "public  interest,"528  and  Gallatin  was  in  favor 
of  remitting  the  half  of  the  forfeitures  due  to  collectors 
and  a  part  of  the  Government's  share.529  In  the  Senate, 
the  matter  had  been  referred  to  a  select  committee,  of 
which  Giles  was  chairman.530  On  the  seventh  of  December,  he 
reported  a  bill  remitting  all  forfeitures  and  penalties  and  se 
cured  its  passage  on  the  fourteenth  by  a  large  majority.  The 
House  had  already,  by  a  close  vote,  refused  to  leave  the  matter 
to  Gallatin531  and,  by  a  vote  just  as  close,  passed  Giles's  bill.532 
In  the  course  of  the  debates  in  that  body,  the  Treasury  was 
severely  handled,  in  attacks  indeed  "hardly  less  mischievous," 
according  to  Gallatin's  biographer,  though,  of  course,  "more 
honest  and  less  spiteful."533 

The  bill534  providing  for  twenty  more  regiments  of  infantry 
to  be  enlisted  for  one  year's  service  met  with  considerable  op 
position.  Giles,  true  to  his  principles  as  announced  during  the 
last  session  in  the  debate  on  the  volunteer  bill,  voted  against  it, 
after  Smith,  Leib,  the  Federalists,  and  he,  himself,  had  failed  in 
their  efforts  to  increase  the  term  of  service  to  five  years,  three 
years  or  eighteen  months.535  He  voted  for  the  bill  authorizing 
a  loan  of  sixteen  million  dollars  and  did  not  join  hands  with  the 
Federalists  in  their  attempt  to  limit  the  rate  of  interest  that 
might  be  paid.536  He  opposed  a  bill  allowing  the  issuance  of 
five  million  dollars  in  Treasury  notes.531 

A  very  interesting  act  for  the  regulation  of  seamen  on 
board  American  ships  was  passed  as  an  overture  to  England  on 

""Adams,  U.  S.,  vi,  440. 

628  Richardson,  Messages  and  Papers,  i,  519. 

1529  Annals,  Twelfth  Congress,  Second  Session,  1258. 

630  Ibid,  18,  28. 

681  December  11. 

683  December  23. 
888Adams,  Gallatin,  472. 

684  Act  approved  January  29. 

885  January  21,  January  23. 

886  February  4,  1813.    Annals,  Twelfth  Cong.,  2nd  Sess.,  96,  97. 

887  Act  approved  February  25,  1813. 


188  WILLIAM  BRANCH  GILES 

the  subject  of  impressment.  Monroe  had,  on  June  26,  1812, 
offered  the  British  government  a  law  prohibiting  the  employ 
ment  of  British  seamen  on  American  ships.53*  In  his  message 
at  the  beginning  of  the  session,  the  President  had  made  mention 
of  the  offer,  and  the  House  had  finally  passed  a  measure  to 
carry  out  the  President's  desires.53*  When  it  came  over  to  the 
Senate,  it  was  handed  to  a  committee  with  Giles  at  the 
head540  and,  on  the  eighteenth,  he  reported  it  with  an  amendment. 
It  was  finally  passed  on  the  twenty-seventh,  the  administration 
senators  giving  their  support  and  the  Federalists  and  Smith, 
Leib  and  German  standing  in  determined  opposition.541  The 
act,  as  passed,  provided  that,  after  the  termination  of  the  pres 
ent  war,  no  persons,  except  citizens  of  the  United  States  or 
persons  of  color  native  of  our  country,  should  be  employed  on 
any  public  or  private  ship.  Citizenship  by  naturalization 
should  be  granted  only  persons  who  had  been  in  continuous 
residence  for  five  years,  and  such  citizens,  on  seeking  employ 
ment,  were  required  to  produce  a  certified  copy  of  the  act 
by  which  they  were  naturalized.  No  seamen  of  another 
nationality  were  to  be  allowed  as  passengers  on  board 
an  American  ship  in  a  foreign  port  without  written  per 
mission  from  the  proper  authorities  of  their  own  country. 
However,  these  provisions  were  not  to  apply  to  the  employ 
ment  of  the  seamen  of  any  country  which  should  not  have 
prohibited  the  employment  of  native  American  citizens  on 
the  public  or  private  ships  of  that  country.542  This  act  was,  no 
doubt,  in  its  operation,  as  Mr.  Adams  claims,  unfavorable  to  the 
United  States.543  England  was  to  surrender  her  claim  to  a 
right  of  employing  American  citizens  and,  in  return,  we  agreed 
to  abide  by  the  same  rule. 

In  the  discussion  of  the  Congress  just  described,  the  party 
of  the  Smiths  did  not  apparently  act  together  to  harass  the 
President.     Whether  it  was  the  chastening  finger  of  a  public 
688  Am.  State  Papers,  Foreign,  iii,  585. 

639  February  12. 

640  Annals,  85. 

641  Ibid,  111. 

642  See  Act  approved  March  3,  1813. 

643  Adams,  U.  S.,  vi,  454,  et  seq. 


"PUTTING  CLAWS  ON  GALLATIN"  189 

crisis  which  influenced  their  minds,  or  whether  the  advent  of  war 
had,  as  usual,  increased  the  political  fighting  strength  of  the 
administration,  in  any  case,  the  Senate  was  unusually  harmo 
nious,  and,  on  most  occasions,  gave  the  required  vote  without 
the  call  for  a  division. 

A  difference,  however,  was  seen  when  Congress  came  to 
gether  again.  The  Thirteenth  Congress  met  in  extra  session 
May  24,  1813.  Federalists  had  made  gains  at  the  Congres 
sional  elections  in  New  York  and  New  England  and  now  could 
muster  sixty-eight  votes.  Some  advantage  had  accrued  to  the 
administration  party  through  the  defeat  of  John  Randolph  of 
Roanoke  by  John  W.  Eppes,  son-in-law  of  Thomas  Jefferson. 54< 
However,  in  point  of  numbers,  the  Federalist  representation 
from  Virginia  remained  unchanged ;  Lewis,  Sheffey,  and  Breck- 
enridge  were  returned  and  three  new  Federalists  were  come  to 
Washington  with  them.545  In  the  Senate,  Brent  and  Giles  were 
still  at  hand,  one  supporting  the  administration,  and  the  other 
frequentlv  acting  in  cooperation  with  Federalists.  Federalists 
in  the  upper  House,  although  the  same  in  number  as  in  the  pre 
vious  session,  had  gained  in  influence  through  the  election  of 
Jeremiah  Mason  from  New  Hampshire  and  Rufus  King  of  New 
York.  Besides  Giles,  there  were  still  present  Smith,  Leib,  Ger 
man  and  Gilman  of  the  discontented  Republicans ;  one  more  sen 
ator,  now  indeed,  appeared  to  strengthen  their  hands,  David 
Stone  of  North  Carolina  in  place  of  Jesse  Franklin.  The  neces 
sities  of  war,  however,  would  be  strength  to  the  administration 
in  any  efforts  to  carry  out  a  legislative  programme. 

Since  Congress  had  assembled  last,  Russia,  the  friend  of  the 
United  States,  and  now  an  ally  of  England,  had  offered  her  ser 
vices  in  mediation  between  the  warring  powers.  Hastening  to 
accept  these  kindly  offices,  the  President  had,  on  May  9,  hurried 
James  A.  Bayard  and  Albert  Gallatin  aboard  for  Russia,  in 
which  country  they  were  to  cooperate  with  John  Quincy  Adams, 

544  Eppes  had  moved  into  Randolph's  district  before  the  12th  Congress 
and  had  been  voted  for  in  1811  but  was  defeated.  He  had  been,  however, 
able  to  reduce  Randolph's  majority.  Eppes  was  an  ardent  war  man  and 
Randolph  one  of  the  most  ardent  anti-war  members. 

548  Ambler,  Sectionalism  in  Virginia,   93. 


190  WILLIAM  BRANCH  GILES 

our  minister,  for  the  purpose  of  negotiating  treaties  with  Eng 
land  and  a  commercial  agreement  with  Russia.546  The  Senate 
proceeded  to  take  under  consideration  the  nomination  of  these 
gentlemen  as  envoys  extraordinary.547  Rufus  King,  advancing 
at  once  to  Federalist  leadership,  offered,  on  June  2,  resolutions 
asking  the  President  for  the  documents  connected  with  the  case, 
and  desiring  to  know  whether  Albert  Gallatin  still  "retains  the 
office  of  Secretary  of  the  Department  of  the  Treasury;"  if  so, 
under  what  authority,  and  who  discharged  the  duties  of  Secre 
tary  of  the  Treasury  during  his  absence.548  The  President,  in 
reply,  answered  that  the  office  of  Secretary  of  the  Treasury  was 
not  vacated,  that  in  Gallatin's  absence  the  duties  were  dis 
charged  by  William  Jones,  Secretary  of  the  Navy,  and  that  the 
proceeding  was  according  to  an  act  of  Congress  named.54* 

Up  to  this  time,  Giles  had  been  absent.  On  this  day,  how 
ever,  he  took  his  seat  and  "put  a  claw  on  Gallatin."550  Two 
days  later,  when  Anderson  of  Tennessee,  usually  heretofore  an 
administration  man,  moved  to  refer  the  nomination  and  the 
message  to  a  select  committee,  Giles  "opened  his  severe  thunders 
upon  poor  Albert."551  A  committee,  appointed  in  accordance 
with  the  motion  above  mentioned,  and  consisting  of  Anderson, 
King,  Giles,  Brown,  and  Bledsoe,  reported  that  they  had  ad 
dressed  a  letter  to  the  President  on  the  subject  and  had  later 
called  on  him  and  had  received  answer  that  the  President  did 
not  recognize  their  official  character  under  the  resolution  as 
adopted  by  the  Senate.  They,  therefore,  offered  for  considera 
tion  a  resolution  declaring  that,  in  the  opinion  of  the  Senate, 
"the  powers  and  duties  of  the  Secretary  of  the  Department  of 
the  Treasury,  and  of  those  of  our  Envoy  Extraordinary  to  a 
foreign  power,  are  so  incompatible,  that  they  ought  not  to  be, 
and  remain,  united  in  the  same  person."5 

640  Richardson,   I,  526. 
547  Annals,  Thirteenth  Cong.,  i,  83. 
648  Ibid,  84. 
849  Annals,  June  7. 

860  Daniel  Webster,  June  7,  1813,  Van  Tyne,  Letters  of  Daniel  Webster, 
38. 

681  Ibid,  39. 

853  Annals,  Thirteenth  Congress,  1st  Sess.,  86,  June  14. 


"PUTTING  CLAWS  ON  GALLATIN"  191 

Twenty  senators,  composed  of  Federalists  and  anti-adminis 
tration  Republicans  voted  aye  on  all  motions  on  the  subject. 
The  committee  waited  on  the  President  informally  on  the  six 
teenth  of  July ;  presented  the  resolution  adopted  June  sixteenth, 
and,  receiving  nothing  but  regrets  that  the  Senate  did  not  agree 
with  him  on  the  subject  of  Gallatin's  nomination,  withdrew.55' 
On  hearing  the  report  from  their  committee,  the  Senate  rejected 
the  nomination  of  Gallatin  by  a  majority  of  one  vote  and  con 
firmed  those  of  Adams  and  Bayard  by  large  majorities.554  On 
the  same  day  on  which  the  nominations  of  the  three  envoys 
extraordinary  were  sent  to  the  Senate,  that  body  received  also 
the  nomination  of  Jonathan  Russell,  of  Rhode  Island,  to  be  Min 
ister  Plenipotentiary  to  Sweden.  Again  the  opposition  raised 
its  voice  and  asked  for  the  "correspondence  which  may  have 
passed  between  the  United  States  and  the  King  of  Sweden, 
respecting  the  interchange  of  public  ministers  between  the  said 
Governments."5 

Answer  was  received  from  the  Secretary  of  State  that  no 
direct  correspondence  had  passed  between  the  two  governments 
but  that  letters  had  been  received  from  other  sources  showing 
the  wishes  and  intention  of  Sweden.55*  Again  the  matter  was 
referred  to  a  committee,  composed  of  Wells,  Giles,  and  King, 
with  instructions  to  confer  with  the  President.557  On  July  6,  a 
message  was  received  from  the  President  declining  the  proposed 
conference  on  the  ground  that  "the  appointment  of  a  committee 
of  the  Senate  to  confer  immediately  with  the  Executive  himself, 
appears  to  lose  sight  of  the  coordinate  relation  between  the 
Executive  and  the  Senate,  which  the  Constitution  has  estab 
lished,  and  which  ought  therefore  to  be  maintained."  Most 
magnanimously  the  President  added  that  he  was  "entirely  per 
suaded  of  the  purity  of  the  intentions  of  the  Senate."558  Indis 
position  of  Madison  prevented  an  interview  between  him  and  the 

563  Anderson's  Report,  Annals,  July  19. 

654  July  19.  Senate  Executive  Journals,  July  19,  1813.  Giles  voted  against 
Gallatin  and  for  Bayard  and  Adams. 

665  Annals,  92,  June  2. 

568  Annals,  92. 

667  Ibid,  95. 

568  Richardson,  Messages  and  Papers,  I,  530. 


192  WILLIAM  BRANCH  GILES 

committee;  finally,  after  the  committee  had  declined  to  inter 
view  the  Secretary  of  State  on  the  subject,559  the  Senate  re 
solved,  twenty-two  to  fourteen,  "that  it  is  inexpedient,  at  this 
time,  to  send  a  Minister  Plenipotentiary  to  Sweden."560 

The  proceedings  described  in  the  preceding  paragraphs 
were  of  course  in  secret  session,  and  the  debates,  therefore,  are 
not  published.  The  prominence  of  Giles  in  the  deliberations  is 
seen  in  his  presence  on  both  of  the  committees  appointed  to  con 
fer  with  the  President  and  by  expressions,  such  as  those  of 
Webster's  quoted  above.  The  intensity  of  feeling  in  the  con 
troversy  is  apparent  and  the  seriousness  of  the  issue  is  easily 
comprehended.  Webster,  writing  on  June  11,  says,  "Giles  has 
no  mercy.  It  is  most  probable  he  will  stick  with  King  &  Co.  I 
should  not  be  surprised,  if  they  should  drive  Madison  to  and 
Gallatin  from  the  Treasury."561  Subtracting  much  from  the 
expressions  of  an  enthusiastic  young  Federalist  not  unable  to 
see  what  he  much  would  desire,  we  can  gather  how  serious  was 
the  opposition  to  the  administration  in  the  Senate.  Monroe 
was  so  excited  about  the  situation  that  he  wrote  to  Jefferson 
asserting  that  the  factions  had  begun  to  make  calculations  and 
plans  founded  on  the  expected  death  of  the  President  and  Vice- 
president  and  that  Giles  was  being  considered,  so  he  was  told, 
to  take  the  place  of  President  of  the  Senate.562 

Was  the  opposition  purely  factious?  Were  all  the  senators 
engaged  in  it  doing  so  merely  to  cripple  the  administration  in  as 
serious  a  situation  as  that  existing  in  1813?  A  statement  of  the 
defence  given  by  the  insurgent  Republicans  is  only  fair.  It  is 
found  in  "An  Address  of  the  Honorable  William  B.  Giles  to  the 
People  of  Virginia,"563  published  in  1813.  This  address  he 

559  Annals,   97. 

660  Note  Mr.  Adams's  confusion  of  Minister  Plenipotentiary  and  Minister 
resident.  Adams,  U.  S.,  vol.  VII,  63;  Sweden  was  going  to  send  us  a 
minister  resident. 

561  Letters  of  Daniel  Webster,  Van  Tyne,  40. 

582  Adams,  Gallatin,  484. 

563  Besides  the  appointments  of  Russell  and  Gallatin  two  other  subjects 
are  discussed  at  length — "The  true  and  factitious  meaning  of  the  terms 
'SUPPORT  THE  ADMINISTRATION' "  and  "The  Right  of  Instructing 
Representatives,  an  Unalienable  right.  To  be  executed  by  Man  in  his 
native,  and  not  in  his  Representative  character."  Under  the  first  of  these 


"PUTTING  CLAWS  ON  GALLATIN"  193 

wrote,  not  only  to  place  himself  in  a  correct  attitude  before  the 
present  generation,  but  to  protect  his  reputation  before  the 
tribunal  of  posterity — for  our  Senator  professes  a  "love  of 
future  fame."  It  was  far  from  his  intentions,  he  declared, 
"to  criminate  the  administration,  .  .  .  still  less,  the 
President  of  the  United  States  individually."  Unrivalled  op 
portunities  for  judging  the  motives  of  James  Madison  had  as 
sured  him  of  "their  unsullied  purity."  Differences  of  opinion 
between  him  and  the  President  were  due  to  "infirmities  of  our 
nature."  Madison  had  been  unfortunate  in  the  unexampled 
difficulties  of  the  circumstances  incident  to  his  period  of  office 
and  also  in  the  "intrusions  of  other  self-created  advisers." 

On  the  subject  of  the  mission  of  Russell,  Giles  rested  his 
defence  for  his  conduct  on  the  fact  that  the  President  proposed 
to  send  to  Sweden  a  Minister  Plenipotentiary  while  Sweden  in 
tended  sending  us  only  an  ordinary  minister  resident.  Declar 
ing  that  he  had  the  greatest  respect  both  for  the  President  and 
Mr.  Russell,  he  asserted  that,  if  the  President  had  nominated 
Mr.  Russell  for  an  appointment  of  the  same  grade  as  that  of 
the  Swedish  Minister,  there  would  not  have  been  "one  solitary 
objection  to  the  measure,  nor  the  person  nominated."5  If  the 
object  of  the  discrimination  was  to  secure  Swedish  mediation 
with  England,  it  could  only  do  harm;  and,  if  its  object  was  to 
accommodate  Mr.  Russell,  it  would  be  sacrificing  public  to 
private  interests.565 

When  he  came  to  the  nomination  of  Gallatin,  Giles  had  some 
interesting  points  to  make.  If  precedent  were  urged  in  favor 
of  the  appointment  to  a  foreign  mission  of  an  important  officer 

heads  Giles  defends  his  attitude  on  war  measures.  The  bill  providing  for 
twenty-five  thousand  men — opposition  to  the  volunteer  bill — the  provision 
for  building  25  frigates,  etc.  To  his  position  now  the  country  had  come — 
he  had  voted  for  the  many  bills  for  carrying  on  the  war. — He  had,  in  sup 
porting  measures,  proved  to  be  wise,  supported  the  administration  better 
than  some  who  got  more  credit  for  doing  so  than  he  did. 

664  This  seems  hardly  reasonable  in  view  of  the  investigation  into  Mr. 
Russell's  conduct  while  Charge  at  Paris,  entered  into  after  Russell's  nomi 
nation  was  made.  Annals,  Thirteenth  Cong.,  i,  91-94. 

M5  Giles  also  defends  the  right  of  the  Senate  to  appoint  a  committee  to 
confer  with  the  President,  which  right  Madison  denied. 


194  WILLIAM  BRANCH  GILES 

in  our  government,  who  was  allowed  to  retain  that  office  in  his 
absence,  he  asked:  Shall  Republicans  follow  Federalist  prece 
dent  which  Republicans  formerly  condemned?  No  one  more 
than  Madison,  Gallatin,  and  Giles  had  opposed  the  appointment 
of  John  Jay  in  1794 — and  now  that  appointment  was  referred 
to  by  the  administration  as  a  precedent  making  valid  another 
similar  appointment.  Very  suggestive  and  very  familiar  lan 
guage  is  that  which  follows :  was  there  no  other  Republican  who 
might  have  performed  the  foreign  service?  Why  select  Mr. 
Gallatin,  a  foreigner,  when  native-born  citizens  of  equal  ability 
for  this  service  might  have  been  found?  Did  Giles  himself  wish 
the  office?  is  a  not  unnatural  query. 

Why,  it  is  asked,  did  the  President  act  so  hastily?  The  ap 
pointments  were  made  just  a  few  weeks  before  the  meeting  of 
the  Senate.  "The  necessity  which  impelled  this  movement,  was 
not  very  urgent  at  the  time,  and  ...  a  becoming 
patience  of  two  or  three  weeks,  would  have  ennabled  the  Pres 
ident  to  consult  the  Senate  upon  the  measure  in  the  usual  con 
stitutional  way,  without  making  so  many  novel  and  hazardous 
experiments  upon  fundamental  principles,  as  necessarily  accom 
panied  the  proceedings,  which  did  take  place.  The  first  of 
these  consists  in  the  attempt  to  unite  in  one  person,  two  incom 
patible  offices ;  the  second,  to  substitute  another  person  to  per 
form  the  duties  of  Secretary  of  the  Treasury  during  his  volun 
tary  absence  from  the  United  States  for  an  indefinite  period." 
This,  then,  was  the  defence.  That  it  had  some  force  no  one 
can  deny.  The  objections  raised  to  the  appointments  seem  to 
be  valid  objections,  with  the  exception  of  that  which  rested  on 
Gallatin's  foreign  birth,  in  which  objection  of  course,  there  was 
no  reason.  As  for  the  charge  of  inconsistency,  Madison,  Giles, 
Federalists,  and  all  the  principal  actors  on  the  political  stage 
at  the  time  were  in  the  same  category.  Federalists  were  talking 
and  acting  like  the  original  Republicans,  Republicans  used  lan 
guage  that  had  fallen  from  the  lips  of  old  time  Federalists.  No 
man,  indeed,  in  American  political  life  ever  held  more  contra 
dictory  opinions  than  did  William  B.  Giles;  no  man,  to  his 
credit  be  it  said,  ever  made  more  frequent  admissions  of  former 


"PUTTING  CLAWS  ON  GALLATIN"  195 

errors.  But,  admitting  that,  technically,  the  opposition  could, 
on  the  subjects  of  the  nominations  of  Gallatin  and  Russell,  offer 
a  fair  defence,  had  there  been  no  real  antipathy  produced  by 
other  causes,  the  votes  on  these  questions  would  no  doubt  have 
been  different.  Part  of  this  antipathy  was  due  to  a  genuine 
conviction  that  the  measures  of  the  administration  were  weak 
and  faulty  and  part,  so  far  as  Republicans  were  concerned, 
was  due  to  the  jealousies  incident  to  political  life. 

For  the  various  tax  bills  proposed  by  the  administration 
Giles  voted.  Two  important  acts  met  with  Giles's  opposition. 
One  was  the  act  making  trading  under  British  licenses  a  mis 
demeanor  punishable  with  forfeiture  and  fine.568  The  aim  of  the 
b,ill  was  to  abolish  trade  between  New  England  and  British 
ports  through  permits  issued  by  the  English  government.  In 
the  Senate,  Giles  proposed  an  amendment  striking  out  the  for 
feiture  provision  and,  on  the  rejection  of  the  amendment,  voted 
with  the  Federalists  against  the  bill.567  The  other  was  an  em 
bargo  desired  by  the  President  to  prevent  an  illegitimate  trade, 
by  which  England  was  enabled  to  secure  from  our  country 
"exports  essential  to  their  wants,  whilst  its  general  commerce 
remains  unobstructed."568  The  Senate  killed  the  measure 
at  this  session,  though  it  was  the  first  act  to  be  passed  in  the 
December  session  of  Congress.569 


666  Act   of   Aug.   2,   1813. 

""Annals,  53,   55. 

668  Act  of  July  28,  1813. 

869  Act  approved   Dec.   17,   1813. 


CHAPTER  XIII 

CLOSING  THE  WAR:  RETIREMENT  OF 
SENATOR  GILES 

While  the  members  of  Congress  were  resting  at  their  homes, 
there  had  been  no  rest  for  anyone  else.  The  army  and  the  ad 
ministration  had  been  busy,  but  there  was  little  to  show  for  their 
worry  and  maneuvers.  In  general,  the  summer  and  fall  of 
1813  had  been  marked  by  failures,  redeemed  by  two  very  for 
tunate  occurrences.  The  campaign  in  the  east  had  resulted  as 
usual  with  no  credit  to  our  forces;  in  the  west,  the  month  in 
which  Congress  had  adjourned  had  witnessed  an  Indian  mas 
sacre.  The  British,  too,  had  been  able  to  blockade  the  Chesa 
peake  and  Delaware  Bays  and  to  bring  increased  suffering  to 
the  homes  of  the  loyal  southern  supporters  of  the  war.  But  these 
southerners  and  their  western  friends  had  wrested  sufficient 
victory  from  defeat  to  give  a  cheerful  note  to  the  President's 
message  on  December  7.  The  victories  of  Perry  on  Lake  Erie 
September  10,  and  Harrison's  achievement  on  the  Thames 
October  5,  together  with  minor  engagements,  enabled  Madison 
to  conclude  that  "the  war,  with  all  its  vicissitudes,  is  illustrat 
ing  the  capacity  and  destiny  of  the  United  States  to  be  a  great, 
a  flourishing,  and  a  powerful  nation."570  A  special  message  of 
December  9  made  a  request  again  for  an  embargo  to  prevent 
supplies  from  our  ports  from  finding  their  way  to  the  British 
armies  and  fleets.  New  England,  as  she  had  once  angrily 
demanded  war,  had  as  angrily  resisted  its  declaration  and  now 
sulkily  refused  to  cooperate  in  conducting  it  to  success.  Her 
representatives  in  Congress  uniformly  voted  against  all  war 
measures;  her  governors  refused  to  allow  the  use  of  the  state 
militia  by  the  Federal  government;  her  money  took  its  flight 
across  the  Canadian  line  instead  of  finding  its  way  into  the 
Treasury  of  the  United  States;  she  stubbornly  withheld  praise 
even  for  naval  victory;  she  talked  secession  and  prepared  for 
it ;  she  furnished  English  forces  with  supplies  with  which  to 
sustain  themselves  while  defeating  American  armies. 
670  Richardson,  Messages  and  Papers,  I,  534. 


RETIREMENT  OF  SENATOR  GILES  197 

But  would  not  an  embargo  but  add  to  the  flame  of  New 
England  rebellion  without  accomplishing  any  real  advantage  to 
the  Government?  However,  it  was  passed;  Giles,  having  re 
ceived  a  light  on  the  subject  since  his  vote  at  the  end  of  the 
last  session,  voted  with  the  majority.571  The  storm  that  might 
have  been  expected  darkened  the  horizon  in  New  England. 
Other  unexpected  circumstances  also  soon  arose.  Although 
Gallatin  and  his  colleagues  had  found  that  their  trip  abroad,  so 
far  as  it  related  to  the  Russian  offer  of  mediation,  was  a  wild 
goose  chase,  yet  it  was  soon  known  that  their  services  would  be 
needed  for  the  negotiation  directly  with  British  envoys,  and 
that  Napoleon  had  apparently  been  crushed.  If  peace  did  not 
soon  come,  England  could  now  use  all  her  forces  against  unfor 
tunate  America,  and  a  further  alienation  of  the  northeastern 
states  seemed  exceedingly  unwise.  The  President,  holding  out 
and  clinging  to  the  precious  embargo  as  long  as  possible,  finally 
yielded  on  March  31,  and  recommended  a  repeal  of  the  ob 
noxious  law  on  the  ground  of  the  defeat  of  the  French  and 
the  inevitable  downfall  of  the  continental  system.572  No  time 
was  lost  by  a  willing  Congress.  The  House,  on  the  seventh  of 
April,  by  an  overwhelming  vote,  passed  the  bill  for  repeal.57^ 
In  the  Senate,  without  delay  and  with  no  appreciable  opposi 
tion,  the  bill  for  repeal  also  passed.574 

Such  military  measures  as  were  demanded  received  the  ap 
proval  of  Congress — measures  in  line  with  previous  contentions 
made  by  Giles.575  In  the  passage  of  them  there  was  a  surpris 
ing  unanimity  in  the  Senate.  Giles  was,  at  this  session,  so  far 
as  the  public  records  show,  particularly  loyal.  When  a  mem 
orial  of  the  House  of  Delegates  of  Maryland  was  presented, 
setting  forth  the  calamities  of  war  and  praying  for  peace,576 
Giles  was  one  of  the  leaders  in  resisting  the  motion  to  print. 

871  Annals,  Thirteenth  Cong.,  2nd  Sess.,  561. 

672  Richardson,  Messages  and  Papers,  1,  542. 

678  Annals,  2002,  April  7. 

CT4  Ibid,  741,  April  12. 

675  Giles,  however,  was  not  Chairman  of  the  Committee  on  Military  Af 
fairs.  He  was  on  the  Committee  on  Militia.  He  played  apparently  only 
a  small  part  in  this  session. 

678  Annals,  Thirteenth   Cong.,  2nd   Sess.,   616. 


198  WILLIAM  BRANCH  GILES 

No  practical  result,  he  declared,  would  come  from  the  memorial. 
Once  more,  as  in  the  days  of  Jefferson,  when  Giles  was  an  admin 
istration  leader,  he  was  now  found  pleading  for  harmony  and 
deprecating  the  evils  "likely  to  grow  out  of  the  heat  and  ani 
mosity  of  party  feeling."577  The  days  of  the  Smith  faction 
were  evidently  numbered,  when  the  intellectual  leader  of  the 
group  was  preaching  brotherly  love.  So  far  as  Congress  was 
concerned,  the  administration  was  continuously  gaining  more 
solid  ground  and  nearing  the  day  when  the  only  opposition 
it  had  to  contend  with  was  that  proceeding  from  the  opposite 
party.  The  breach  among  the  Republicans,  which  John  Ran 
dolph  had  first  opened  in  1804,  which  Samuel  Smith  and  Wil 
liam  B.  Giles  had  been  widening  since  1809,  was  fast  closing. 
Before  many  months,  even  the  Federalists  were  to  be  humiliated 
through  their  own  excesses  and  the  fortunate  issue  of  peace, 
and  Madison  was  to  stand  at  last  supreme. 

Congress  had  decided  to  meet  again  on  the  last  Monday  in 
October  but  great  and  weighty  matters578  made  it  necessary  to 
call  them  together  on  September  19.  We  had,  indeed,  won 
victories;  Brown  and  Scott  had  successfully  fought  at  Chip- 
pewa  and  Lundy's  Lane,  though  nothing  had  been  gained. 
With  these  exceptions,  nothing  had  occurred  which  could  give 
encouragement.  The  British  continued  the  blockade  of  our 
coast,  working  distress  to  the  chief  supporters  of  the  war — New 
England  talked  even  more  loudly  of  defiance  and  was  now  plan 
ning  for  a  convention  whose  outcome  none  could  tell.  And, 
most  insistent  problem  of  all,  the  financial  situation  was  dis 
tressing  to  our  statesmen.  When  the  proclamation  for  the 
early  meeting  of  Congress  was  issued,  the  most  humiliating 
event  of  the  war  had  not  taken  place.  For,  on  August  24,  the 
capital  city  itself  had  been  taken  and  the  meeting  place  of  the 
national  legislature  had  been  destroyed.  One  happy  occurrence 
served  to  brighten  men's  spirits  just  before  the  opening  of 
the  session — the  victory  of  Macdonough  at  Plattsburg  on 
September  11.  The  President  called  upon  Congress  to  put 

677  The  substance  of  Giles's  Speech  (except  the  first  of  his  remarks) 
is  found  in  the  answer  of  Goldsborough,  Annals,  618,  621. 

"'Madison's  Proclamation  of  August  8th. 


RETIREMENT  OF  SENATOR  GILES  199 

forth  the  greatest  efforts  to  provide  for  the  pecuniary  supplies 
and  military  forces. 

On  the  fifth  of  November,  Giles,  for  the  Committee  on 
Military  Affairs,579  reported  two  bills.  The  first  authorized 
the  enlistment  of  recruits  between  the  ages  of  18  and  50  years, 
allowed  each  future  recruit  three  hundred  and  twenty  acres  of 
land,  in  lieu  of  the  existing  allowance  of  one  hundred  and 
sixty,  and  declared  exempted  from  service  in  the  militia  any 
person  subject  to  militia  duty  who  should  furnish  a  recruit. 
The  second  authorized  the  President  to  call  upon  the  states 
and  territories  for  quotas  for  two  years'  service  to  maintain 
the  defence  of  the  frontiers  of  the  United  States.580  These 
bills  were  drafted  after  conference  with  Monroe,  now  Secre 
tary  of  War,581  and  were  offered,  not  in  exact  compliance  with 
his  recommendations,  but  as  the  strongest  measures  possible  of 
enactment.  The  first,  after  debate,  passed  the  Senate  November 
12  without  a  division.  No  trouble  was  found  by  the  able  op 
ponents  of  the  measure  in  detecting  defects  in  the  second  bill 
or  in  finding  objections  against  it  both  practical  and  theoret 
ical.  It  was  unjust,  oppressive,  unconstitutional,  without  pre 
cedent,  incapable  of  execution.  It  was  regarded  as  the  first 
step  in  the  direction  of  conscription,  and  resistance  to  it,  if 
passed,  was  threatened  by  Federalist  Senators.582  Giles's 
speech  in  its  defence  is  not  at  hand.  From  the  other  partici 
pants  in  the  discussion,  we  learn  that  he  upheld  its  constitu 
tionality  and  its  popularity.  He  appealed  for  support  for  the 
administration  in  the  present  crisis,  an  administration,  which, 
"if  weak  and  violent,"  was,  at  least,  "honest  and  patriotic."5 
Some  doubt  was  cynically  expressed  as  to  his  credentials  to  act 
as  a  friend  of  the  administration  but,  with  an  elasticity  not 

679  Which  he  now  headed.    Foreign  Relations  and  Military  Affairs  seem  to 
have  been  separated  in  the  13th  Congress.    Giles  seems  to  have  had  a  tussle 
to  get  the  chairmanship  of  the  Committee  on  Military  Affairs  instead  of 
the  chairmanship  of  the  Committee  on  Militia. 

680  Annals,  38. 

681  See    Monroe    Correspondence,    Oct.    1814.    Annals,    13th    Cong.,    3rd 
vol.,  Appendix,  1502  et  seq. 

683  See  Speech  of  Gore,  Nov.  22,  Annals,  13th  Cong.,  3rd  vol.,  100. 
683  Annals,  72,  75,  77,  78,  84. 


200  WILLIAM  BRANCH  GILES 

peculiar  to  himself,  he  had  returned  for  the  time  being  to  the 
support  of  Madison  and  the  Secretary  of  War.  The  Senate 
seemed  to  be  under  good  control  and  passed  the  militia  bill 
19  to  12,  with  the  opposition  only  of  Federalists  and  two  Re 
publicans.584  In  the  House  the  Militia  bill  was  attacked  with 
the  greatest  energy.  Some  opposed  it  because  it  authorized  a 
draft,  some  because  it  did  not.  Troup,  the  Chairman  of  the 
House  Committee  on  Military  Affairs,  fought  it  because  he 
considered  it  "inadequate  to  the  object.  It  proposed  to  give 
you  a  militia  force,  when  you  wanted  not  a  militia  but  a  regu 
lar  force."  No  one  was  more  heartily  in  accord  with  this 
principle  than  was  Giles.  As  strong  provision  for  a  regular 
army  as  had  any  chance  of  carrying,  he  had  already  furnished. 
Troup  declared  the  government  had  "absolute  power  over  the 
population  of  this  country  for  this  purpose,  and  that  in  the 
present  state  of  the  country  it  is  wiser  to  resort  to  classifica 
tion  and  draft  than,  to  resort  to  the  bill  from  the  Senate."5 
Giles  would  have  followed  Troup  or  anyone  else  to  the  utmost 
limits  on  that  proposition,  but,  unfortunately,  others  besides 
the  Georgian  and  the  Virginian  had  to  be  consulted.  For 
instance,  Cyrus  King  of  Massachusetts  declared  that  the  con 
scription  bill  of  the  House  was  "still  more  destructive  of  our 
militia  .  .  .  completely  annihilating  the  State  sovereign 
ties."5  Sheffey  of  Virginia  characterized  the  measures  pro 
posed  by  the  administration  as  "arbitrary  and  despotic."587 
The  bill,  however,  after  mutilation  by  the  House,  and  refusal 
of  that  body  to  accept  the  report  of  the  conference  committee, 
was,  in  disgust,  indefinitely  postponed  by  the  Senate.588  Be 
sides  the  act  authorizing  the  employment  of  minors  and  in 
creasing  the  bounty,  the  only  other  provision  for  the  army  was 
an  act,  inspired  by  the  indisposition  of  the  states  to  raise  vol 
unteer  forces,  authorizing  the  President  to  receive  such  corps, 
up  to  forty  thousand  men,  to  be  employed  only  in  the  states 

684  Nov.  22,  Anderson  and  Varnum. 

685  Speech,  Dec.  2. 

686  Speech,  Dec.  3. 
^Annals,  854. 
^December  28. 


RETIREMENT  OF  SENATOR  GILES  201 

raising  the  same  or  in  adjoining  states,  except  with  the  consent 
of  the  respective  state  executives.589  The  Military  Committee, 
during  the  whole  session,  however,  was  an  exceedingly  busy 
committee ;  under  the  leadership  of  Giles,  it  acted  in  consistent 
harmony  with  the  desires  of  the  President.  No  member  of  the 
Senate  during  the  session  was  more  active  or  had  a  larger  hand 
in  shaping  legislation. 

Only  less  fortunate  than  the  inefficiency  of  measures  for 
defence  was  the  financial  legislation.  Here  was  the  greatest 
need ;  with  money,  the  government  would  not  suffer.  The  coun 
try  was  not,  indeed,  impoverished  but  the  problem  of  tapping 
the  inexhaustible  resources  of  a  well-to-do  people  was  the  prob 
lem  taxing  statesmanship.  Loans  had  not  done  it;  treasury 
notes  of  the  kind  heretofore  authorized  had  not  been  successful. 
Secretary  Campbell,  after  betraying  the  straightened  circum 
stances  of  the  government,590  had,  ill  and  discouraged,  thrown 
up  the  fight  and  resigned.  Andrew  J.  Dallas  had  then  been 
called  upon  to  steer  the  sinking  financial  craft.  The  new  Sec 
retary  thought  the  Treasury  suffering  from  every  kind  of  em 
barrassment,591  had  little  respect  for  the  proposed  solution 
of  the  difficulty  by  the  issuance  of  more  treasury  notes,  and 
thought  the  only  solution  was  the  reestablishment  of  a  "nation 
al  institution  operating  upon  credit  combined  with  capital  and 
regulated  by  prudence  and  good  faith."592  A  bill  was  there 
upon  brought  forward  in  the  House  providing  for  the  estab 
lishment  of  a  bank  with  a  capital  stock  of  fifty  million  dollars.59' 
At  the  instance  of  Calhoun,  the  measure  was  totally  changed 
by  the  committee  of  the  whole  so  as  to  take  away  from  the 
government  any  privilege  of  holding  stock  and  all  control  of 
the  bank  operations.59'  Between  the  two  plans,  the  House  was 
unable  to  accomplish  anything.  The  Senate  now  took  up  the 

B89Act  of  January  27,  1815. 

690  See  Report,  Sept.  23,  1814. 

691  American  State  Papers,  Finance,  ii,  872. 
592  Ibid,  866. 

098  Introduced  in  House,  Nov.  7 — debated  Nov.  14  and  after. 
*•  Annals,  Nov.  16  and  17. 


202  WILLIAM  BRANCH  GILES 

question595  and  voted  in  favor  of  the  bank.596  The  House, 
after  once  voting  it  down,  finally,  on  reconsideration,  voted  for 
it.  A  vain  fight  was  made  in  the  Senate  to  retain  the  pro 
visions  of  their  bill  providing  for  a  capital  of  $35,000,000,  and 
authorizing  the  suspension  of  specie  payment.  Giles,  both  be 
cause  of  the  necessity  of  concession  and  on  principle,597  spoke 
and  voted  against  insistence  on  the  Senate  measure,  and  the  bill 
after  a  sharp  contest  was  passed,598  only  to  be  vetoed  by  the 
President  on  the  ground  that,  as  constituted  by  the  proposed 
law,  the  bank  would  not  serve  the  needs  of  the  government.599  A 
vain  attempt,  supported  by  Giles,  was  made  by  the  Federalists 
to  pass  the  bill  over  the  veto  and  failed ;  whereupon,  another  bill 
presented  by  Giles's  colleague  and  friend,  James  Barbour,  more 
in  accordance  with  the  President's  desires,  passed  the  Senate 
against  the  opposition  of  Giles,  only  to  be  killed  in  the 
House.600  All  hope  for  a  National  Bank  at  this  session  was 
destroyed.  In  financial  legislation,  Congress  confined  itself  to 
provisions  for  further  taxes601  and  further  loans.802 

Giles  was  exceedingly  active  during  the  whole  session.  As 
Chairman  of  the  Military  Committee,  despite  the  failure  of 
one  of  his  principal  measures,  the  militia  bill,  he  was  con 
stantly  engaged  and  participated  in  the  enactment  of  a  num 
ber  of  important  laws.  Besides  the  more  important  questions 
necessary  to  be  considered,  the  committee  were  compelled  to  act 
on  many  minor  matters,  such  as  relief  for  sufferers  and  in 
demnification  for  losses  arising  from  the  progress  of  war. 
Giles's  recommendations  were  in  line  with  the  desires  of  the 
administration  and  the  charge  of  factiousness,  so  far  as  it 
refers  during  this  session  to  the  conduct  of  business  imme- 

695  Bill  reported   Dec.  2. 

696  Dec.    9.    Giles    did   not   vote. 

697  So  says  Annals,  174,  but  he  had  voted,  167,  to  raise  the  capital  from 
$30,000,000   to    $35,000,000. 

698  Jan.  20. 

699  Jan.   30,    Richardson,    Messages    and    Papers,    i,    556. 
600  Annals,  231,  1168. 

801  Acts,  Dec.    15,    1814;   Dec.   21,   23;   Jan.   9,    1815;   Jan.    18,    Feb.    27, 
Mar.   3. 

802  Acts  approved  Nov.  15,  1814,  authorized  loan  of  $3,000,000;  Dec.  26; 
Feb.   24. 


RETIREMENT  OF  SENATOR  GILES  203 

diately  under  his  charge,  falls  to  the  ground.  As  a  matter  of 
fact,  the  only  important  administration  measure  which  he 
fought  was  the  Bank  measure  and  this  he  had  fought  on  every 
occasion  since  his  first  entrance  into  Congress. 

Two  pleasant  duties  fell  to  his  lot  before  Congress  adjourned. 
One  was  the  proposal  of  resolutions  complimentary  to  General 
Jackson  and  his  men  "for  their  uniform  gallantry  and  good 
conduct"  and  directing  the  President  to  cause  to  be  struck 
and  presented  to  the  General  a  gold  medal  "emblematical  of  this 
splendid  achievement."6  The  other  was  the  drafting  of  a 
report  "respecting  the  relative  powers  of  the  General  and 
State  Governments  over  the  militia."  For  fear  that  the  pre 
tensions  of  Massachusetts,  Connecticut,  and  Rhode  Island,604  if 
acquiesced  in,  might  be  resumed  in  the  event  of  a  future  war, 
the  committee  felt  themselves  "impelled  by  a  sense  of  justice 
to  express  a  decided  approbation  of  its  (the  administration's) 
conduct,  in  supporting  and  preserving  the  Constitution  of  the 
United  States  against  the  effects  of  the  State  authorities  afore 
said,  which,  after  full  consideration,  the  committee  believe  not 
warranted  by  the  Constitution,  nor  deducible  from  any  fair 
and  just  interpretation  of  its  principles  and  objects."605 

The  report  described  was  purely  for  the  assertion  of  ab 
stract  principle.  For,  contrary  to  Giles's  mournful  prophesies 
of  ill  that  would  befall  the  government,  the  end  of  the  war 
had  already  come,  and,  with  it,  the  end  of  contests  between 
President  and  Governors  on  the  subject  of  the  militia.  On 
February  21,  the  Treaty  of  Peace  was  laid  before  the  Senate 
and,  without  delay,  confirmed.  It  now  remained  for  Congress 
to  assist  in  the  establishment  of  conditions  of  peace  in  place 
of  war.  Among  other  things,  Congress  put  an  end  to  the 
system  of  commercial  restrictions  by  the  repeal  of  the  "of 
fending  remnants  of  our  discrimination  and  non-intercourse  sys- 

808  Feb.  13. 

604  In  claiming  that  the  President  had  no  power  to  make  requisitions 
of  a  State's  militia  unless  the  Governor  approved  the  call;  and  that  such 
militias  when  called  out  could  not  be  commanded  by  officers  of  the  regular 
army. 

606  Appendix,  13th  Congress,   1743-1744. 


204  WILLIAM  BRANCH  GILES 

tern."606  The  act  appropriately  reported  to  the  Senate  by  that 
Senator  who  had  been  closely  associated  with  the  whole  plan 
of  restrictive  legislation  on  commerce,  repealed  all  acts  shutting 
our  ports  to  foreign  ships,  including  the  embargo  act  of  July 
1812,  and  the  licensing  act  of  August,  1813.  Thenceforth 
the  British  Orders,  French  Decrees,  and  American  Embargoes, 
and  non-intercourse  were  no  longer  to  interfere  with  the  natural 
progress  of  American  trade.607  In  this  way,  ended  a  policy, 
commenced  in  1807,  persisted  in  "as  a  kind  of  political  faith," 
"to  be  believed,  not  examined,"  for  eight  years. 

With  the  end  of  the  war,  we  were  to  enter  on  a  new  era, 
and,  in  our  freedom  from  entangling  relations  with  the  two  great 
European  belligerents,  we  were  to  have  opportunity  for  larger 
concentration  on  domestic  policies.  But,  in  the  contests  on  great 
policies  on  the  national  arena,  Giles  was  to  have  no  part.  He 
was,  however,  on  a  smaller  field,  to  wield  his  sword — without 
wielding  a  sword  he  could  not  live. 

The  session  ending  March  3,  1815,  was  Giles's  last  session 
in  the  Congress  of  the  United  States.  He  had  seen  many  years 
of  participation  in  national  affairs,  and,  during  every  year  of 
it,  when  not  ill,  he  had  played  a  vigorous  part — most  of  the  time 
in  building  up  and  maintaining  a  Republican  party.  In  the 
last  few  years,  dissatisfied  with  the  measures  of  the  adminis 
tration  and  unfriendly  to  a  distinguished  Secretary  of  the 
Treasury — possibly  jealous  of  him — he  had  acquired  a  repu 
tation  for  factiousness  and  party  disloyalty  and  had  been  pun 
ished  severely  by  the  lash  of  public  denunciation.  The  last 
year  of  his  Senatorial  career  had  been  marked,  outwardly  at 
least,  by  a  return  to  a  more  complete  sympathy  with  the  leaders 
of  the  party  and  had  afforded  an  opportunity,  if  not  for  a  glori 
ous,  at  least  for  a  graceful  retirement. 

Writing,  as  early  as  November  20,  1814,  to  his  friend  and 
future  colleague,  Governor  Barbour,  he  expressed  a  definite 
intention  to  resign  at  the  expiration  of  the  session.  The  let 
ter  is  well  worth  reading  and  will  be  given  entire: 

608Schouler,  U.  S.,  II,  491. 
607  Schouler,  U.  S.,  II,  491. 


RETIREMENT  OF  SENATOR  GILES  205 

"Washington 
December  20.  1814. 
"Dear  Sir, 

I  duly  received  your  two  friendly  favors  of  the  14th  and  16th 
instant ;  and  felt  truely  grateful  for  the  kind  interests  you  have 
taken  in  my  behalf  in  repelling  the  unmerited  attacks  of  de 
luded  and  infuriated  partisans.  Protected  by  conscious  recti 
tude,  they  will  pass  by  me,  as  the  idle  wind ;  which  I  regard  not. 
I  sincerely  congratulate  you,  upon  your  election  to  the  Senate 
of  the  U.  S. ;  and  in  triumphing  over  the  opposition  dictated 
by  a  similar  spirit.  It  would  afford  me  real  pleasure 
to  be  associated  with  you  in  the  discharge  of  Senatorial  duties ; 
but  I  think  it  probable,  that  will  not  be  the  case ;  as  I  propose 
to  resign  after  the  fourth  of  March;  if  left  to  myself;  but  I 
may  be  impelled  to  serve  out  the  present  term  by  outrage,  vio 
lence,  and  injustice.  Indeed  I  very  much  regret,  that  I  have 
not  heretofore  been  favored  with  your  counsel  and  assistance ; 
because  I  verily  believe,  in  that  case,  a  great  portion  of  the 
evils  which  have  befallen  our  country,  might  have  been  averted. 
I  expect  to  leave  this  place  for  Richmond  in  two  or  three  days, 
and  shall  therefore  leave  for  a  personal  interview,  a  compari 
son  of  opinions  upon  several  topics  now  in  a  course  of  con 
sideration  here;  having  the  most  important  tendencies,  of  any 
I  have  ever  witnessed  since  my  entrance  into  publick  life : — 

Believe  me,  as  usual,  sincerely  your  friend 
His  excellency  Wm  B.  Giles" 

James  Barbour 

In  accordance  with  the  intention  expressed  in  the  letter  just 
quoted,  on  November  23,  he  addressed  to  the  Governor  of  Vir 
ginia  a  communication  in  which  he  declared  that,  on  account 
of  his  long  desire  to  return  to  private  life  and  the  necessity  of 
attending  to  private  concerns,  he  would  take  advantage  of  the 
happy  condition  of  the  country  to  resign  the  senatorial  office.608 
The  judgment  of  many  on  this  retirement  was  expressed  in  an 
editorial  by  Thomas  Ritchie,  afterwards  his  earnest  coadjutor 
in  Virginia  politics,  two  days  after  the  resignation :  "In  parting 

60s  Virginia  Calendar  of  State  Papers,  x,  425. 


206  WILLIAM  BRANCH  GILES 

with  a  man  who  has  lived  so  long  in  public  and  filled  so  large 
a  space  in  the  eyes  of  the  country,  we  bid  adieu  to  one  of  the 
first  geniuses  of  this  State.  Mr.  Giles  has  erred ; — private  feel 
ing  has  too  much  mingled  with  public  duty — but  in  point  of 
talents,  he  leaves  few  equals  behind  him."6  Whatever  our 
opinion  as  to  his  conduct  during  the  administration  of  Madison, 
we  may  almost  accept  an  opinion  alleged  to  have  been  given 
by  John  Randolph,  "There  never  was  so  great  a  void  occa 
sioned  in  any  assembly  as  that  caused  by  the  retirement  of 
William  B.  Giles  from  the  United  States  Senate."610 

609  Enquirer,  November  25,  1815. 

610  Ibid,  December  16,   1830. 


WILLIAM  BRANCH  GILES 

Chester  Harding's  portrait  of  Governor  William  Branch  Giles,  1829,  in  possession  of  Virginia  Historical  Society 


CHAPTER  XIV 

STATE  RIGHTS  IN  VIRGINIA  AFTER  THE 
WAR  OF  1812* 

It  has  been  said  many  times  with  truth  that  the  War  of  1812 
promoted  nationalism.  "The  Country,"  says  a  student  of  the 
period,  "entered  the  war  distracted,  indifferent,  and  particular 
istic  ;  it  emerged  from  it  united,  enthusiastic,  national."611  Al 
though  the  Federalists  were  destroyed  by  their  opposition  to 
the  war,  the  Hartford  Convention,  the  Peace  of  Ghent,  and 
the  Battle  of  New  Orleans,  yet  they  bequeathed  their  doctrine 
to  the  triumphant  party.  Certain  it  is  that  Federalist  par 
ticularism  during  the  war  was  bitterly  condemned  by  Repub 
licans,  and  certain  it  is  that  the  dominant  party  proceeded  to 
do  all  the  things  which  they  had  condemned  when  the  Federal 
ists  were  in  power.  It  is  equally  true,  however,  that,  from 
the  very  end  of  the  War  of  1812,  there  was  continuously,  a 
strong  section  of  the  Republican  party  that  retained  the  old 
strict  constitutional  beliefs  and  that  let  no  opportunity  pass 
of  strongly  asserting  their  ideas. 

The  year  after  the  war  ended,  there  was  delivered  the  answer 
of  the  Supreme  Court  of  Appeals  of  Virginia  to  the  Supreme 
Court  of  the  United  States  in  the  case  of  Martin  vs.  Hunter's 
Lessee,  declining  to  obey  a  mandamus  of  the  Supreme  Court 
of  the  United  States  and  declaring  the  decision  of  a  state 
court  could  not  be  reversed  by  the  United  States  Court.  Four 
years  later  appeared  Chief  Justice  Roane's  attack  on  the  de 
cision  of  Marshall  in  the  case  of  McCullough  vs.  Maryland,  and 
again,  in  1821,  Roane's  assault  in  his  Algernon  Sidney  papers 
on  the  decision  in  Cohens  vs.  Virginia.612  The  case  of  Roane 
stands  out  in  conspicuous  lines  because  of  his  position  and  of  the 
dramatic  features  of  an  attack  by  a  great  judge  on  the 

*"  Nicholas  Murray  Butler  in  J.  H.  U.  Studies,  Fifth  Series,  vii. 
""For  a  description  of  this  contest,  see  W.  E.  Dodd— "Chief  Justice 
Marshall  and  Virginia,"  Am.  Hist.  Review,  July,  1907. 


*  Some  of  this  chapter  was  published  in  the  South  Atlantic  Quarterly 
for  July   1911. 


208  WILLIAM  BRANCH  GILES 

revered  Marshall,  both  distinguished  sons  of  the  same  state. 
Roane,  however,  was  only  the  evident  head  of  a  party,  prompted 
by  Jefferson,  voicing  itself  through  the  Richmond  Enquirer 
and  the  legislature.  It  is  true,  to  be  sure,  that  there  was  in 
Virginia  an  opposition,  sectional  in  most  part — western — in 
terested,  for  good  reasons  of  their  own,  in  nationalistic  policies, 
and,  at  times,  able  to  make  their  ideas  felt  in  legislative  enact 
ments.  But  the  old  Republicans  generally  dominated.  To  the 
great  Strict  Construction  Party  of  Virginia,  besides  a  great 
judge,  Roane,  an  ex-president,  Jefferson,  a  great  editor, 
Ritchie,  cousin  of  Roane,  there  belonged  a  great  publicist,  John 
Taylor  of  Caroline,  conductor  at  his  home,  Port  Royal,  of  a 
hostelry  for  all  good  Republicans,  and  a  great  orator,  John 
Randolph,  and  a  future  President,  John  Tyler,  besides  a  host 
of  more  unfamiliar  names. 

The  theories  of  the  leaders  were  reflected  in  the  attitude  of 
the  state  legislature.  Just  before  and  just  after  the  war,  the 
General  Assembly,  it  is  true,  had  shown  a  nationalistic  tendency. 
In  1810,  they  had  replied  to  the  proposition  of  the  legislature 
of  Pennsylvania  in  the  Olmstead  case  to  amend  the  Constitution 
by  the  establishment  of  "an  impartial  tribunal  to  determine 
disputes  between  the  general  and  state  governments,"  that,  in 
their  opinion,"  a  tribunal  is  already  provided  by  the  Constitu 
tion  of  the  United  States,  to  wit,  the  Supreme  Court,  more  em 
inently  qualified  from  their  habits  and  duties,  from  the  mode 
of  their  selection,  and  from  the  tenure  of  their  offices,  to  de 
cide  the  disputes  aforesaid  in  an  enlightened  and  impartial 
manner,  than  any  other  tribunal  which  could  be  erected."613 
The  following  year,  on  the  other  hand,  they  declare  the  National 
Bank  unconstitutional,  and  instruct  Senators  Giles  and  Brent 
"to  use  their  best  efforts  in  opposing  by  every  means  in  their 
power  the  renewal  of  the  charter  of  the  bank  of  the  United 
States."6  However,  by  "the  united  vote  of  the  West  against 
the  East,"  in  the  session  of  1814-1815,  a  report  of  a  commis 
sion,  dominated  by  John  Marshall  and  recommending  Federal 

613  Ames,  State  Documents  on  Federal  Relations,  425. 

614  Ibid,  10. 


VIRGINIA  AFTER  THE  WAR  OF  1812  209 

appropriations  for  internal  improvements  in  Virginia,  was 
adopted.615 

But,  by  1817,  the  strict  constructionists  had  regained  the 
saddle.  Resolutions  in  1819  again  opposed  the  bank,  and,  in 
1820,  the  legislature  declared,  "that  the  Congress  of  the  United 
States  have  no  right  to  impose  upon  the  people  of  Missouri, 
as  a  condition  of  their  admission  into  the  Union,  the  restriction 
which  has  been  proposed  in  Congress,  or  any  other  restriction 
not  necessary  to  guarantee  a  republican  form  of  government." 
Following  Cohens  vs.  Virginia  in  1822,  regardless  of  their 
opinion  in  1810,  they  resolved  that  the  Supreme  Court  of  the 
United  State?  does  not  possess  appellate  jurisdiction  in  any 
case  decided  by  a  State  Court."616  On  the  tendencies  of  the 
times,  there  is  no  more  suggestive  commentary  than  the  writings 
of  Jefferson.  In  1816,  in  a  letter  to  Gallatin,  he  had  rejoiced 
in  a  "spontaneous  and  universal  concurrence  of  sentiment." 
In  1820,  however,  he  is  full  of  grief  because  of  the  financial 
depression,  "the  steady  tenor  of  the  courts  of  the  United  States 
to  break  down  the  constitutional  barriers  between  the  coordi 
nate  powers  of  the  states  and  the  Union,"  and  the  threatening 
aspect  of  the  Missouri  question.  Federalism,  though  killed  as 
a  party,  had  arisen  in  a  more  dangerous  form  in  the  Repub 
lican  ranks  and  the  judges  were  at  its  head.61'  A  struggle  was 
necessary  to  save  the  country  from  complete  dominance  by  the 
heirs  of  Alexander  Hamilton.  John  Taylor  and  Judge  Roane, 
the  Virginia  apostles  of  the  old  ideas,  were  about  to  pass  off 
the  stage,  the  one  in  1824,  and  the  other  two  years  before.  On 
whom  should  their  mantles  fall? 

In  1824,  an  answer  came.  On  April  9  of  that  year,  there 
appeared  in  the  Enquirer,  a  bitter  attack  on  the  latitudinarian 
policies  of  Monroe  and  Clay.  This  was  the  beginning  of  a 
series  of  articles,  long,  frequent,  ingenious,  and  from  the  same 
pen  which  iterated  and  reiterated  the  doctrines  of  1798-1799.618 

615  Ambler,   Sectionalism   in   Virginia,    98. 

818  Ames,  State  Documents   on  Federal   Relations,   104. 

617  Writings  of  GaUatin  (Adams),  i,  105;  ii,  176,  258,  273. 

618  Most  of  Mr.  Giles's  writings  of  this  period  are  collected  in  a  volume 
entitled  Political  Miscellanies.    Unless  other  reference  is  given  the  articles 
quoted  are  in  this  book. 


210  WILLIAM  BRANCH  GILES 

The  author  of  the  article  in  question  was  that  same  ancient 
enemy  of  Alexander  Hamilton,  in  whom  Jefferson  and  Madison 
had  found  so  ready  and  vigorous  an  ally  in  the  attacks  on  the 
Federalists  regime  and  in  their  attempts  to  bring  to  success  a 
system  of  their  own,  William  B.  Giles.  The  same  statesman 
it  was  who  had  engineered  the  famous  investigation  of  the 
Treasury  Department  in  1793;  who  had  declared  he  saw  no 
evidence  of  wisdom  in  the  administration  of  Washington,  and 
that  the  earlier  that  famous  gentleman  retired  the  better;  who 
had  helped  in  the  agitation  in  Virginia  in  1798,  and  later  lent 
capable  assistance  in  promoting  the  Revolution  of  1800.  Jef 
ferson's  right  hand  man  to  1808,  he  had  supported  with  all  his 
fiery  intensity  the  embargo  acts,  had  devoted  his  talents  to 
Madison's  cause  in  1808  but  had,  in  1810,  turned  his  back  on 
the  administration  and  helped  the  Federalists  to  weaken  its 
hands.  Once  popular  in  Virginia,  he  had,  as  we  have  seen,  de 
stroyed  that  popularity  by  denying,  in  a  speech  in  the  Senate, 
the  mandatory  character  of  legislative  instructions  to  United 
States  senators.619  While  sick  and  under  the  ban,  he  had  vol 
untarily  withdrawn  from  the  public  arena  in  1815  to  his  farm 
in  Amelia  County.  Joyfully  greeted  by  admiring  children  and 
neighbors,  and  affectionately  attended  by  four  score  slaves,  he 
had  entered  upon  nine  years  devoted  to  the  pursuit  of  financial 
improvement  and  physical  recuperation.  His  spacious  plan 
tation  of  three  thousand  acres,  with  its  comfortable  mansion 
furnished  in  solid  mahogany,  adorned  with  costly  silver  plate, 
and  equipped  with  its  bountiful  supply  of  stock,  shops,  mills, 
dairies,  and  barns,  afforded  the  conveniences  and  distractions 
suited  for  the  relief  of  a  wearied  body  and  mind.  Little  time 
had  he  for  public  affairs.  He  did,  however,  faithfully  read  the 
best  paper  in  all  the  world,  Thomas  Ritchie's  Enquirer.  And, 
in  retirement,  he  had  watched,  though  unable  to  join,  the  great 
movements  of  the  time.  A  few  days'  service  in  the  Legislature 
in  1816,  a  series  of  articles  in  1817620  and  1818,621  published  in 
the  Enquirer,  was  all  he  had  been  able  to  do.  By  1824,  how- 

819  And  by  his  general  opposition  to  Madison. 
620  Against  a  system  of  universal  education. 
631  Against  a  state  convention. 


VIRGINIA  AFTER  THE  WAR  OF  1812  211 

ever,  his  health  had  evidently  recovered,  and  the  old  lust  for  a 
part  in  the  political  war  overpowered  him.  By  nature  and 
training  devoted  to  State  Rights,  he  found  in  the  discussion 
of  the  time  a  favorable  opportunity.  The  pens  of  Taylor  and 
Roane  were  laid  down;  these  he  essayed  to  pick  up  and  wield, 
hoping  thereby  to  humiliate  the  Federalists  in  the  Republican 
ranks.  And  what  harm  would  come  if  his  writings  should  open 
again  to  him  the  doors  of  political  preferment? 

He  had  seen  with  amazement  and  disgust  men  who  called 
themselves  Republicans  follow  such  wild  vagaries  as  protective 
tariff,  internal  improvements  by  the  Federal  Government,  a 
National  Bank.  To  be  sure,  he  himself  had  once  been  guilty 
of  forwarding  the  cause  of  internal  improvements,  and,  in  his 
eagerness  to  support  the  embargo  acts,  had  stretched  the 
powers  of  the  Federal  government  in  real  Hamiltonian  style. 
But  these  acts  were  done  under  the  aegis  of  the  great  original 
Democrat  himself,  and  some  of  them  in  times  of  great  necessity. 
In  old  age,  the  fervor  of  youth  in  defence  of  the  sacredness  of 
constitutional  limitations  on  Federal  power  returned  to  him, 
and  the  enemies  of  those  limitations  he  now  assaulted  with  more 
than  the  fury  with  which  he  had  assailed  the  arch  monarchist, 
Alexander  Hamilton  himself. 

In  the  article  of  April  19,  1824,  he  denounced  Monroe,  a 
favorite  enemy  of  past  years,  for  abandoning  State  Rights. 
Under  the  influence  of  the  electioneering  spirit,  the  President 
and  Clay  are  led,  according  to  Giles,  to  ride  any  popular  hob 
by  in  a  very  different  way  from  George  Washington,  whom 
Giles,  despite  his  earlier  criticisms,  had  now  learned  to  admire. 
The  protective  tariff  is  a  species  of  robbery  of  one  section  by 
another.  Messrs.  Monroe  and  Clay,  on  internal  improvements 
and  Greek  and  South  American  affairs,  also  receive  severe  cas- 
tigation.  However,  the  article  just  described  is  merely  intro 
ductory  to  a  series,  which,  under  the  characteristic  title,  "Po 
litical  Schemers — Hard  Times,"  ran  through  April  and  May. 
The  funding  system  of  Great  Britain  and  our  banking  system 
are  highly  distinguished  members  of  that  class  of  political 
schemes  which  were  producing  hard  times.  "Of  all  the  per- 


212  WILLIAM  BRANCH  GILES 

nicious  monopolies  that  ever  have  been  invented,  banks,"  he 
declares,  "must  be  considered  as  the  most  pernicious."  A  bank 
is  a  monopoly  of  currency  and  "a  practical  usurpation  of  his 
(the  individual's)  natural  right  to  property." 

In  regard  to  the  tariff,  he  asserts,  "no  legitimate  govern 
ment,  still  less  the  government  of  the  United  States,  being  a 
government  of  chartered,  limited  powers,  has  any  right  what 
ever  to  intermeddle  with  the  surplus  proceeds  of  man's  labor, 
after  paying  the  public  contributions;  and  every  encroachment 
upon  this  sacred  guarantee  to  the  individual  by  government, 
is  a  palpable  and  unjustifiable  usurpation."  The  tariff  makes 
us  less,  instead  of  more,  independent;  it  will  injure  our  com 
merce  and  our  shipping.  Besides,  what  is  the  effect  of  our 
tariff  law  upon  our  farmers,  the  growers  of  cotton,  tobacco, 
flour  and  rice?  They  "are  now  suffering  and  most  justly  com 
plaining  of  'hard  times'  produced,  amongst  other  causes,  by 
the  present  exhorbitant  tariff.  A  great  number  of  worthy, 
wealthy,  and  middling  farmers  and  planters  have  already  been 
stripped  of  a  great  portion  of  their  property,  in  a  great  de 
gree  by  various  governmental  schemes.  Many  have  been  re 
duced  to  poverty,  and  many  driven,  most  reluctantly,  from 
their  native  states,  and  beloved  friends  and  firesides,  to  take 
their  chance  in  the  wilderness  for  better  times."  Those  who 
have  not  migrated  have  remained,  hoping, — "if  the  natural  or 
der  of  things  could  be  permitted  in  any  degree  to  be  restored, — 
they  might  be  enabled  so  far  to  reinstate  their  affairs  as  to  save 
their  families  from  utter  ruin  and  despair;  but  upon  the  first 
blush  of  this  hope,  this  destructive  tariff  bill  is  presented  to  their 
view;  and  in  an  instant  it  has  blasted  all  their  fond  anticipa 
tions.  Apprehension  and  despondency  are  again  visible  upon 
the  countenances  of  almost  all  intelligent  reflecting  men." 

The  pathetic  picture  with  which  the  preceding  paragraph 
concludes  is  not  the  mere  wail  of  pessimism  or  of  sectional 
prejudice.  Evidence  revealing  the  impoverished  condition  of 
the  South  during  the  decade  1820-1830  is  abundant.622  Giles 
himself,  from  this  time  until  his  pen  becomes  still  in  1830,  tells 

622  There  had  been  an  economic  revival  just  after  the  war. 


VIRGINIA  AFTER  THE  WAR  OF  1812 

again  and  again  the  story  of  Virginia's  impoverishment.  His 
writing,  his  speeches,  his  messages  as  Governor,  reflect  this  feel 
ing  of  utter  discouragement  existing  in  the  South  of  the  Tide 
water  during  the  twenties.  Well  known  are  the  cases  of  Jeffer 
son,  who,  in  debt,  had  to  secure  the  privilege  of  using  the  lottery 
and  was  compelled  to  accept  the  generosity  of  his  friends ;  of 
Madison,  who  could  not  offer  acceptable  security  to  the  United 
States  Bank;  of  Monroe,  who  had  to  sell  his  home.62'  Pathetic 
are  the  letters  of  John  Randolph  of  Roanoke  to  Josiah  Quincy 
as  early  as  1814  after  a  visit  to  the  seat  of  his  ancestors  at 
the  confluence  of  the  James  and  the  Appomatax.  "Nothing," 
he  wailed,  "can  be  more  melancholy  than  the  aspect  of  the 
whole  country  in  tidewater — dismantled  country  seats,  ruinous 
churches,  fields  forsaken  and  grown  up  with  mournful  ever 
greens, — cedar  and  pine."  The  old  families  had  dispersed  from 
"St.  Mary's  to  St.  Louis ;  such  as  remained  here  sunk  into  ob 
scurity.  .  .  .  Deer  and  wild  turkeys  are  nowhere  so 
plentiful  in  Kentucky  as  near  Williamsburg."624 

Those  who  could  went  west,  as  Giles  declared.  Jefferson,  as 
early  as  1818,  informed  Gallatin  that  "emigration  to  the  West 
and  South  is  going  on  beyond  anything  imaginable."625  Many 
of  those  who  remained  at  home  became  unspeakably  dis 
couraged,  as  did  Giles,  and  took  vengeance  in  vituperation 
against  the  politicians  whom  they  considered  responsible; 
others,  as  we  shall  see,  tried  to  find  a  way  out  by  scientific  farm 
ing,  the  raising  of  cotton,  and  the  sale  of  slaves.62*  Too  many 
probably  failed  to  examine  their  own  mismanagement  and  local 
institutions,0 '>T  and  spent  profitless  energy  in  denouncing  bank 
and  tariff:  but  those  historians  not  committed  to  a  defence  of 
the  Hamiltonian  ideas  nor  to  a  necessity  of  finding  in  slavery 

623  See   Turner  in   Am.   Hist.   Review,  xi,   559— "The   South,   1820-1830." 
Ambler,  Sectionalism  in  Virginia,  112.     For  further  evidence,  see  Debates 
of  Convention,   1829-30.     Also  Virginia  Slavery  Debate  of  1832,  passim. 

624  Life  of  Josiah  Quincy  by  Edmund   Quincy,  351,  354. 

625  Writings   of  Jefferson    (Ford),   x,    115. 

626  The  evidence  on  the  point  is  overwhelming.    See  below,  p.  227.     And 
Virginia  Slavery  Debate,  1832,  passim;  Ambler,  Sectionalism,  112. 

627  Some,  however,  saw  the  economic  evil  in  slavery,  e.  g.  John  Randolph. 
Life  of  Quincy,  351. 


214  WILLIAM  BRANCH  GILES 

the  cause  of  all  southern  ills,  may  see  in  the  burden  of  a  pro 
tective  tariff  a  just  cause  of  great  and  widespread  discontent 
at  the  South. 

Despite  the  fact  that  denunciation  of  the  tariff  was  profit 
less,  the  contentions  of  the  South  were  sound  and  their  com 
plaints  justified.  VViien  they  declared  that  the  tariff  imposed 
an  unequal  burden  on  the  South,  that  it  was  robbing  one  sec 
tion  for  the  benefit  of  another,  they  were  telling  the  literal  truth. 
They  found  themselves  compelled  to  pay  higher  prices  for  the 
hemp,  flax,  wool,  and  iron  used  in  great  quantities  on  southern 
plantations,  while  they  knew  that  they  were  adding  more  than 
their  share  to  the  wealth  of  the  nation.  In  1829,  they  contri 
buted  three-fourths  of  the  agricultural  products  exported  from 
the  country  and  three-fifths  of  all  commodities  that  were  sent 
abroad.628  When  they  were  told  of  the  immense  benefit  that 
would  accrue  to  the  manufacturers  and  farmers  alike  through 
the  creation  of  home  markets,  they  answered:  "The  manufac 
turers  by  having  the  monopoly  of  furnishing  us  with  their 
commodities,  would  in  consequence  obtain  the  monopoly  of  be 
ing  the  only  purchasers  of  ours."6 

Yet  the  farmers  of  Virginia  did  not  leave  to  governors  and 
legislatures  the  exclusive  privilege  of  endeavoring  to  secure 
their  redress.  One  of  the  most  interesting  studies  now  remaining 
to  be  made  in  Virginia  History  is  an  investigation  of  the  activ 
ities  of  rural  citizens  between  1820  and  1830  to  promote  their 
own  interests.  A  glowing  chapter  could  be  written  on  the  agri- 
'  cultural  societies  of  Virginia,  following  the  war  of  1812.  Soci 
eties  in  other  states  had  been  formed  during  the  period  of  the 
confederation,  and  Washington,  in  1788,  had  written  on  the 
benefit  of  these  organizations.  But  no  effectual  organization 
was  formed  in  Virginia  until  1811  when  the  "Richmond  Society 
for  Promoting  Agriculture"  was  formed.  John  Marshall  was 
President,  James  Monroe,  Vice-president,  Abraham  Venable, 
Treasurer,  George  Hay,  Secretary.  This  society  was  revived 

628  Wilson,    Division    and    Reunion    (1893),    50. 

629  The  American  Farmer,  ii,  57,  from  an  address  to  the  Public  by  the 
"United  Agricultural  Societies  of  Virginia." 


VIRGINIA  AFTER  THE  WAR  OF  1812  215 

in  1818,  with  John  Taylor  of  Caroline,  a  student  of  scientific 
farming,  as  new  President. 

Probably  no  more  active  society  was  established  in  Virginia 
than  the  Albemarle  Agricultural  Society. 63(  This  organization 
was  formed  in  October  1817,  and  adopted  a  programme  of 
"objects  for  the  attention  and  inquiry  of  an  agricultural 
society,"  contributed  by  Thomas  Jefferson.  Madison  became 
President,  Jefferson's  son-in-law,  T.  M.  Randolph,  first  Vice- 
president,  ex-governor  James  Barbour,  second  Vice-president. 
A  moving  spirit  was  John  H.  Cocke  of  Fluvanna  County,  an 
intelligent  farmer  on  a  large  scale  and  a  frequent  contributor 
of  articles  on  agricultural  subjects.  The  Albemarle  Society, 
in  addition  to  a  discussion  of  farming  problems,  endeavored 
to  secure  the  establishment  of  a  professorship  of  agriculture 
at  the  University  of  Virginia.  The  fund  raised  by  them  was 
loaned  out  and  lost,  and  the  splendid  opportunity  was  never 
seized  by  the  State  University.  Another  effort  of  theirs  was 
to  secure  a  union  of  the  agricultural  societies  of  Virginia.  Such 
a  union  was  formed  in  1820.  Edmund  Ruffin,  later  editor  of 
the  Farmer's  Register,  the  man  who  was  to  fire  the  first  shot  of 
the  Civil  War,  was  the  Secretary  and  leading  member.  In  an 
address  to  the  Public  of  Virginia,  they  narrate  the  facts  of  the 
exhaustion  of  Virginia  soil  and  the  wholesale  emigration  from 
the  state,  and  emphasize  the  importance  of  an  increased  know 
ledge  of  agricultural  subjects,  scientific  and  practical.  They 
are  united,  they  declare,  not  only  for  "the  improvement  of  the 
practice,"  but  also  "for  the  protection  of  the  rights  and  in 
terests  of  agriculture."  In  consequence,  they  denounce  the 
tariff,  and  send  a  memorial  to  Congress.631 

All  the  activity  of  Virginia,  therefore,  was  not  that  of  Gen 
eral  Assemblies,  Governors,  and  Congressmen.     Back  of  them, 

esc  Original  MSS.,  Letters  and  other  information  bearing  on  the  Agri 
cultural  Society  of  Albemarle  as  well  as  on  agriculture  in  general  in 
Virginia  may  be  found  in  a  collection  of  MSS.  compiled  by  N.  F.  Cabell 
(1807-1891)  for  the  purpose  of  writing  a  history  of  Virginia  agriculture. 
In  addition  to  manuscript  material,  there  are  bibliographies  of  immense 
value  to  the  student  of  Virginia  agriculture.  This  collection  is  now  in 
the  possession  of  the  State  Library  at  Richmond,  Va. 

681  American  Farmer,  ii,  37. 


216  WILLIAM  BRANCH  GILES 

contemplating  the  sufferings  of  the  state,  studying  crops,  fer 
tilizers,  machinery,  sheep-raising,  and  kindred  topics  were  bands 
of  farmers,  many  of  them  prominent  citizens  and  politicians, 
it  is  true,  earnestly  fighting  the  economic  battles  of  Virginia 
in  her  period  of  distress. 

I  do  not  find  that  Giles  himself  was  prominent  in  the  agri 
cultural  efforts  of  the  agricultural  leaders.  He  was,  however, 
a  farmer  on  a  large  scale  and  interested  in  progressive  farming. 
He  felt  as  farmers  did;  in  exaggerated  form,  he  interpreted 
their  spirit,  and  their  discontent  gave  him  an  opportunity  for 
political  appeal.  With  some  hope  of  being  heard,  he  could 
sound  the  clarion  call  for  political  revolution.  When  he  wrote, 
therefore,  it  was,  of  course,  for  no  merely  educational  pur 
poses.  His  earlier  writings  were  contributions  to  the  campaign 
for  the  election  of  Crawford  and  were  directed  particularly 
against  Henry  Clay.  However,  when  Adams  was  elected 
by  the  House,  Giles  joined  in  the  chorus  of  Democratic 
attack  on  the  new  President  with  the  determination  of 
harassing  his  administration  and  of  preventing  his  reelection. 
And,  from  Mr.  Adams's  own  writings,  as  well  as  from  con 
temporary  testimony,  we  know  that  Giles  was  not  the  least  of 
those  who  disturbed  the  slumbers  of  the  unfortunate  New 
Englander.  Additional  interest  is  added  to  these  assaults 
on  President  Adams  by  the  fact  that  the  path  of  the  erratic 
Virginian  and  that  of  the  caustic  statesman  of  Quincy  had 
crossed  before  this  time.  Readers  of  that  acute,  though 
acrid  and  unfair,  commentary  on  men  and  measures  known 
as  The  Memoirs  of  John  Quincy  Adams  will  find  fre 
quent  mention  of  William  B.  Giles.  During  the  years  1803- 
1808,  the  period  of  Adams's  senator  ship,  these  men,  so  similar  in 
temper,  but  generally  so  different  in  ideas,  seem  to  have  been 
thrown  together  very  frequently  and  not  on  unpleasant  terms. 
At  that  time,  Giles  was  the  man  of  power  and  John  Quincy,  in 
characteristic  Adams  fashion,  not  unwilling  to  increase  his  own. 
How  much  influence  the  brilliant  conversation  of  the  Virginia 
leader  and  his  veiled  offers  in  return  for  Federalist  aid  may  have 
had  on  Mr.  Adams,  we  do  not  know ;  we  do  know,  however,  that 
Mr.  Adams  became  converted  to  the  Republican  cause  and  that, 


VIRGINIA  AFTER  THE  WAR  or  1812  217 

when  he  was  out  of  political  employment  in  1809,  while  Giles  still 
had  great  power,  he  received  a  safe  berth  as  minister  to  Russia. 
We  actually  know  that,  on  one  occasion,  Giles  took  Mr.  Adams 
into  his  carriage,  that  he  defended  him  when  attacked  by  Fed 
eralists,  and  that,  on  another  occasion,  Mr.  Adams  actually 
records  in  his  diary  that  all  he  could  do  in  discussing  a  subject 
which  Giles  had  exhausted  was  to  "present  some  of  his  ideas 
in  new  lights."  Now,  however,  in  1825,  Mr.  Adams,  first  hon 
ored  by  the  government  of  the  United  States  when  Giles  was 
influential,  had  risen  until  the  House  of  Representatives  had 
placed  him  in  the  presidential  chair.  Carrying  with  him  still, 
under  his  Republican  cloak,  that  Federalism  which  he  had  in 
herited,  he  of  necessity  became  a  target  for  those  Republicans 
who  still  retained  the  ideas,  as  well  as  the  name,  of  Republicans. 
To  Mr.  Adams,  Giles  paid  his  respects  in  the  first  of  a  series 
of  fourteen  numbers  published  in  the  Enquirer  from  February  . 
to  December  1825,  under  the  title,  "Political  Disquisitions." 
The  opinions  of  Adams  on  internal  improvements  are  attacked 
on  constitutional  grounds.  Significant,  as  underlying  a  large 
part  of  southern  antagonism  to  this  policy,  is  his  assertion  that 
internal  improvements  by  the  National  Government  endanger 
the  slavery  interests  of  the  southern  states.  To  a  considera 
tion  of  Adams,  Mr.  Giles  returns  in  January  1826632  with  a 
merciless  dissection  of  the  famous  message  of  1825.  Phrases 
loosely  dropped  by  Adams  in  his  exuberant  enthusiasm  for  in 
ternal  improvements  are  held  up  to  the  light  and  their  hidden 
significance  pitilessly  revealed.  In  Giles's  opinion,  the  General 
Government  had  no  business  meddling  with  such  subjects.  In 
ternal  improvements  were  an  affair  for  the  state  governments 
and  for  individuals.  Even  when  conducted  by  the  states,  they 
were  of  doubtful  value.  Witness,  says  Giles,  the  evil  results  of 
the  Erie  Canal  and  the  total  waste  of  money  employed  on  the 
James  River  Canal,  which  works  only  injury  to  the  country 
through  which  it  passes.  Let  Government  leave  money  in  the 
hands  of  the  citizens  and  let  individuals  use  it  in  much  needed 

682  In  a  series  called  "The  Golden  Casket — or,  The  President's  Message— 
or,  a  proclamation  of  a  great  Civil  revolution  in  the  Government  of  this 
Union." 


218  WILLIAM  BRANCH  GILES 

efforts  for  the  reclamation  and  fertilization  of  the  soil.  Not 
confining  himself  to  a  discussion  of  the  President's  message,  the 
author  launched  into  a  caustic  review  of  Adams's  career.  Al 
though,  in  1808,  Giles  himself  had  testified  in  the  Senate  of  the 
United  States  to  the  disinterestedness  of  Adams's  conversion  to 
Republicanism,  now  he  declares  the  President  was  animated 
chiefly  by  desires  for  his  personal  promotion  and  aggrandize 
ment.  It  was  Adams,  too,  the  Secretary  of  State,  who  was 
responsible  for  Monroe's  political  somersault  and  for  all  the 
illegal  acts  of  that  administration.  And  the  moral  of  the 
story  is:  "Let  us,  then,  at  the  next  election  look  up  to  one 
for  our  President  who  stands  voluntarily  committed  to  pre 
serve  State  Rights,  and  whose  tried  patriotism,  sound  wis 
dom  and  moral  rectitude  could  afford  us  the  best  guarantee 
against  all  mischievous  schemers,  and  ambitious  encroach 
ments."  In  other  words,  Giles  had  joined  the  great  party 
in  Virginia  bent  on  defeating  Adams.  He  threw  all  his 
force  into  the  fight  for  Jackson,  and,  next  to  Ritchie,  was 
the  intellectual  leader  in  Virginia  of  the  anti- Adams  movement. 
Indeed,  through  his  vigorous  articles  and,  especially,  through 
his  publication  of  a  letter  he  had  received  from  Jefferson  in 
December,  1825,  he  attracted  national  attention,  causing  in 
particular  an  embarrassing  controversy  between  Adams  and 
the  New  England  Federalists.633 

Meanwhile,  Giles  entered  politics  again  on  his  own  account. 
A  candidate  for  the  United  States  Senate  in  1825,  he  had  re 
ceived  a  respectable  vote.634  In  1826,  he  made  an  unsuccessful 
campaign  for  Congress,635  then  his  faithful  people  of  Amelia 
elected  him  to  the  Legislature,  and,  in  February,  1827,  the  Leg 
islature  elected  him  governor  of  the  state.  In  the  Legislature, 
the  two  principal  subjects  under  discussion  during  these  years 
were  the  proposed  convention  for  the  revision  of  the  constitu- 

683  Jackson   managers    in   Washington   were   much    interested   in    Giles's 
publication  and  egged  him  on.     MS.  letters  of  Giles  to  Tazewell  and  letter 
of  Giles  to  Duff  Green,  May  24,  1829.     The  latter  is  in  the  Van  Buren 
Collection,  Library  of  Congress. 

684  Fifty-eight  votes  on  the  first  ballot.    The  highest  was  65.    Enquirer, 
December   10,   1825. 

685  Against  W.  S.  Archer. 


VIRGINIA  AFTER  THE  WAR  OF  1812  219 

tion  under  which  Virginia  had  lived  since  1776,  and  the  usur 
pations  of  the  General  Government.  The  Convention  bill  Giles 
vigorously  attacked,  and,  on  the  subject  of  the  encroachments 
of  the  General  Government,  he  brought  in  a  long  report  and 
resolutions  denouncing  the  policies  of  protective  tariff  and  in 
ternal  improvements.  These  resolutions  of  1827  became  the 
most  famous  of  all  the  resolutions  of  Virginia  on  Federal  rela 
tions  since  1798.  In  the  popular  mind,  the  resolutions  of  1827 
were  associated  with  the  great  resolutions  of  1798,  and  the  fact 
that  Giles  was  instrumental  in  the  passage  of  both  was  not  over 
looked.636 

The  principal  opponent  of  Giles's  programme  was  a  man 
able  and  famous  in  his  day,  but  now,  like  so  many  famous  states 
men,  unfortunately  forgotten — Robert  Barraud  Taylor,  from 
that  consistent  Federalist  stronghold,  Norfolk.  A  few  words 
descriptive  of  the  career  of  the  great  Federalist  may  be  of 
interest.  Born  March  24, 1774,  educated  at  William  and  Mary, 
from  which  he  was  expelled,  along  with  the  other  participant, 
for  a  duel  with  John  Randolph,  he  nourished  his  intellectual 
power  by  imbibing  the  doctrines  of  John  Marshall,  in  whose 
office  in  Richmond  he  studied  law.  Then,  moving  back  to  his 
old  home  at  Norfolk,  he  allied  himself  with  the  Federalists,  to 
whom  he  became  a  pillar  of  strength.  Once  before  1827,  he  and 
Giles  had  met  in  the  public  arena:  both  were  present  in  the 
Virginia  Assembly  of  1799  and  had  respectively  attacked  and 
defended  the  report  of  that  year.  Since  that  time,  Taylor  had 
added  to  his  reputation  by  his  defence  of  Norfolk  in  the  War 
of  1812  and  by  his  oration  at  Yorktown  during  Lafayette's 
visit  in  1824.  It  was  in  answer  to  him  that  Giles  delivered  those 
long  and  able  speeches  of  February  21  to  23  and  March  2, 
on  the  constitutionality  and  expediency  of  the  tariff  and  inter 
nal  improvements.  "What,"  he  asks,  "can  we  gain  by  the  adop 
tion  of  the  tariff  policy?"  Agricultural  interests  can  derive 
from  it  only  injury.  It  has  already  shown  its  effects  "in  the  de- 

638  The  comments  of  Madison  and  J.  C.  Cabell  on  these  resolutions  are 
interesting.  Madison  defended  the  tariff;  Cabell  was  bitterly  hostile  to 
Giles.  See  Madison's  Writings  (Hunt),  and  Mad.  MSS.,  Library  of  Con 
gress. 


220  WILLIAM  BRANCH  GILES 

pression  of  prices  of  agricultural  productions,  and  the  conse 
quent  depression  in  the  prices  of  lands  from  the  Potomac  to  the 
Gulf  of  Mexico ;  indeed,  throughout  the  whole  agricultural  coun 
try  of  the  United  States."  It  is  the  tax  on  the  farmer,  not  for 
public  welfare  as  the  gasconading  presidential  candidate,  Clay, 
would  have  us  believe ;  but  a  tax  "to  encourage  the  idleness,  and 
to  pamper  the  wealth  of  manufacturing  stockholders."  It  is  an 
unprincipled  tribute,  to  whose  payment,  he  significantly  sug 
gests,  the  other  classes  of  society  will  not  long  submit. 

Two  days  after  this  encounter,  began  Giles's  term  as  Gov 
ernor  of  the  Commonwealth.  The  position  of  chief  executive 
of  Virginia  in  1827  was  honorable  but  beautifully  innocuous 
and  impotent.  The  forefathers  of  the  old  state  had  been  so 
fearful  of  loosing  in  their  midst  vicious  whelps  of  George  the 
Third,  that  they  had  chained  up  their  Governors  and  left  them 
little  but  the  privilege  of  voicing  their  feelings,  in  not  too  un 
becoming  a  manner,  to  their  legislative  masters.  Governors 
were  elected  by  the  legislature  for  one  timid  year  at  a  time  up 
to  three;  they  possessed  no  power  of  veto;  and  shared  what 
little  power  was  given  them  with  eight  councillors,  over  whom 
they  had  the  privilege  of  presiding  unless  indisposed.  With 
them,  the  Governor  enjoyed  the  delightful  privilege  of  commis 
sioning  the  self  appointed  county  nabobs  as  justices  and 
sheriffs,  of  distributing  the  newly  made  map  of  the  state,  of 
commanding  from  his  comfortable  mansion  the  scattered  militia, 
of  reprieving  and  pardoning,  of  sending  recommendations  to 
the  Honorable,  the  General  Assembly  of  Virginia.  Executive 
letters  and  minutes  show  Giles,  despite  his  increasing  suffering, 
to  have  been  a  faithful  executive.  True,  during  his  administra 
tion,  occurred  a  Treasurer's  defalcation  for  twenty-five  thou 
sand  dollars,  but  there  was  no  reason  to  attribute  it  to  executive 
oversight  or  negligence,  and  a  similar  defalcation  had  occurred 
in  1820.  Day  after  day,  the  Council  sat,  faithfully  reading 
petitions,  and  mercifully  commuting  the  death  penalty  of  free 
negroes,  or  pardoning  slaves  who  were  accused  of  stealing  hogs 
or  committing  assault  or  murder,  or  rape,  when  it  was  shown 
that  the  country  gentlemen  who  had  convicted  them  had  over- 


VIRGINIA  AFTER  THE  WAR  OF  1812  221 

strained  the  law  or  when  petitions  came,  as  they  frequently  did, 
from  respectable  whites,  making  known  extenuating  circum 
stances.  Though  an  ardent  slaveholder,  Giles,  as  Governor  of 
the  state,  was  inclined  to  lament  the  severity  of  penal  laws  ap 
plying  peculiarly  to  free  negroes,  and  to  regret,  on  account 
of  the  white  prejudice  against  them,  the  administration  of  the 
law  in  some  instances  "more  in  rigour  than  in  justice." 
Slavery  to  him  was  an  evil,  the  transportation  of  the  negroes 
from  Africa  had,  however,  in  his  opinion,  been  a  blessing  to 
the  negro  but  was  an  injury  to  the  white  because  of  "intermix 
ture"  and  its  "discouragement  to  the  labouring  freemen."  Now, 
however,  it  was  a  necessity;  for  he  saw  no  remedy.  Toward 
incendiary  pamphlets,  the  Governor  was  bitter.  Some  of  these 
exhilarating  documents  were  circulated  in  Richmond  in  1829 
and  1830,  whose  "character  and  tendency"  were  "to  excite  in 
surrection  among  the  people  of  colour."  The  Governor  was 
advised  by  the  Council  to  call  the  attention  of  the  legislature  to 
the  propriety  of  providing  by  law  "for  preventing  the  intro 
duction  and  circulation  of  papers,  writings  or  publications 
and  for  the  prohibition  of  practices  designed,  or  having  a  ten 
dency,  to  produce  insurrection  among  the  people  of  Colour."6 
At  one  time,  rumors  of  a  threatened  insurrection  of  the  blacks 
alarmed  the  population  of  several  counties,  but  such  an  out 
break  was  to  be  postponed  until  the  adventure  of  Nat  Turner 
in  1831. 

During  his  administration,  Giles  was  also  deeply  interested 
in  the  improvement  of  the  penitentiary  system  and  hoped  that 
Virginia  would  not  be  behind  other  states  in  meliorating  the  con 
dition  of  the  "frail"  members  of  our  society.  But  another  sub 
ject  was  closer  to  the  heart  of  this  ardent  southern  Governor 
than  pardoning  slaves  or  repairing  the  armory  or  improving 
the  penal  system. 

Raised  to  the  executive  office  because  of  his  espousal  of 
strict  construction,  it  would  be  expected  of  Giles  that  he  would 
continue  his  utterances  in  its  behalf.  It  will  be  found,  therefore, 
that,  in  his  messages,  he  did  not  fail  to  hurl  his  accustomed 

'"Executive  Letter  Book,  Jan.  6  and  Feb.  19,  1830,  and  Journal  of 
the  Executive  Council,  1829-1830,  p.  8. 


222  WILLIAM  BRANCH  GILES 

vehemence  against  the  usurpations  of  the  National  Government. 
In  his  first  message,  December  3,  1827,  while  presenting  an 
elaborate  scheme  for  internal  improvements  at  the  expense  of 
the  state,  he  deplored  internal  improvements  by  the  General 
Government,  with  particular  reference  to  its  encroachment  on 
the  jurisdiction  of  the  states  over  territory  within  their  bounds. 
Agriculture,  under  the  operations  of  the  tariff,  was  becoming  a 
losing  occupation,  and  yet  we  were  threatened  with  extension  of 
the  tariff.  Then  followed  the  significant  sentence,  "Under  these 
circumstances,  it  is  for  the  wisdom  of  the  General  Assembly  to 
determine  what  measures  are  best  calculated  to  arrest  the  prog 
ress  of  the  evil,  to  relieve  the  people  of  the  commonwealth,  and 
to  reinstate  them  in  the  full  enjoyment  of  all  their  rights  and 
liberties."6  Still  more  significant  is  a  special  message  of  Feb 
ruary  8,  1828,  transmitting  resolutions  received  from  Georgia 
and  South  Carolina.  Words  were  used  in  this  document  sound 
ing  very  much  like  a  threat  of  secession  if  the  oppressive  laws 
of  the  United  States  were  not  repealed.  "I  cannot  help  observ 
ing,  however,"  he  says,  "  that  it  must  be  a  subject  of  the  highest 
gratification  to  every  citizen  within  the  scenes  of  country  now 
laboring  under  the  unauthorized  oppressions  of  the  General 
Government,  to  know  that  the  local  authorities  over  them  have 
competent  constitutional  means  in  their  owrn  hands  for  the  pur 
pose  of  doing  themselves  justice,  if,  most  unfortunately,  they 
should  be  forcibly  driven  to  that  deprecated  resort:  in  fact,  in 
the  worst  state  of  things,  that  the  oppressed  scenes  of  country 
afford  abundant  means  to  the  local  authorities  to  secure  to 
themselves,  in  their  intercourse  with  the  world,  all  the  salutary 
independence  of  nations;  to  protect  themselves,  without  the 
least  hazard,  against  physical  force  from  every  quarter ;  whilst 
through  the  same  means,  their  wealth  and  prosperity  might  be 
augmented  to  an  amount  beyond  any  estimate  which  has  yet 
been  made  in  the  contemplation  of  that  view  of  the  subject."  It 
is  strange,  he  declares,  that  the  advocates  of  these  unjust 
measures  should  be  so  blind  to  their  own  interests  as  to  continue 
a  policy  which  will  drive  the  tributary  sections  of  the  country 

688  Journal  of  House  of  Delegates,  Dec.  3,   1827. 


VIRGINIA  AFTER  THE  WAR  OF  1812  223 

to  contemplate  "these  powerful  allurements"  which  everyone 
knows  will  attend  a  change  in  their  political  relations  with  the 
world — a  change  from  which  the  "inhabitants  of  the  scenes  of 
country  receiving  the  unhallowed  tribute  .  .  .  have  every 
thing  to  fear  and  nothing  to  hope."639 

This  message  was  variously  received  according  to  the  polit 
ical  beliefs  of  the  critics.  In  some  cases,  Giles  was  praised  as 
"the  able  defender  of  the  Constitution  and  the  faithful  watch 
man  of  America  liberty."  In  other  cases,  toasts  like  the  follow 
ing  were  proposed:  "The  Union;  Its  blessings  are  too  highly 
appreciated,  to  be  jeopardized  by  the  cant  of  Dr.  Cooper,  the 
intemperance  of  South  Carolina,  or  the  ravings  of  William  B. 
Giles."  To  the  suggestions  of  disunion,  there  came,  even  from 
the  friends  of  Giles,  apparently  little  favorable  expression  of 
sentiment.  Ritchie  assured  "The  National  Intelligencer"  and 
"all  such  terrorists"  that  no  citizen  of  the  state  is  so  "mad"  as 
to  approve  of  "resistance  of  the  laws,  or  a  dissolution  of  the 
Union."  He  thinks  a  fear  that  there  is  such  a  sentiment  pro 
ceeds  only  from  "exaggerated  misrepresentations"  of  the  Gov 
ernor's  message.640  The  legislature,  on  account  of  the  lateness 
of  the  session,  did  not  take  up  the  subject  until  the  following 
year.  But,  on  February  24,  1829,  resolutions  were  passed 
which  declared  that  the  tariff  laws  were  oppressive  and  ought 
to  be  repealed,  at  the  same  time  giving  as  their  opinion  that,  in 
construing  the  constitution,  "each  state  should  be  guided,  as 
Virginia  has  ever  been,  by  a  sense  of  forbearance  and  respect 
for  the  opinion  of  the  other  States,  and  by  a  community  of 
attachment  to  the  Union,  so  far  as  the  same  may  be  consistent 
with  self-preservation,  and  a  determined  purpose  to  preserve 
the  purity  of  our  Republican  Institutions."6 

Thus  the  Legislature.  The  Governor,  however,  waited  for 
no  timid  legislature.  He  had  practical  things  in  mind  that  were 
not  so  radical  as  the  threats  contained  in  the  message  and  these 
more  moderate  means  of  retaliation  he  revealed  in  one  of  the 
most  interesting  letters  in  tariff  history — a  letter  dated 

889  Ibid,  Feb.  8,  1828. 

640  Enquirer,  Feb.  16,  1828. 

641  Ames,  State  Documents  on  Federal  Relations,  157. 


224  WILLIAM  BRANCH  GILES 

May  21,  1818,  and  addressed  to  Tazewell  and  Tyler,  Senators 
from  Virginia — 

"The  tariff  bill  has  at  length  passed  in  its  most  destructive 
form — Is  not  an  obligation  imposed  thereby  upon  the  southern 
people,  to  counteract  its  effects?  Have  they  the  means  of  doing 
so,  with  perfect  safety  and  certain  efficiency?  Could  not  this 
counteraction  be  produced  by  concert  amongst  the  representa 
tives  of  the  tributary  States?  Most  certainly.  Never  before 
were  any  people  subjected  to  such  plunder,  and  degradation, 
with  such  ample  means  in  their  own  hands  of  doing  themselves 
justice,  without  applying  them  to  their  object — Whilst  the 
people  of  that  scene  (sic)  of  country  have  all  the  means,  of 
effectually  regulating  the  tariff  at  their  own  pleasure,  they 
strangely  permit  others,  to  seize  upon  these  very  means,  and 
apply  them  to  their  own  advantage — Would  not  an  internal 
excise  upon  domestic  manufacturies  (sic)  brought  within  the 
limits  of  the  plundered  states,  corresponding  with  the  external 
imposts  upon  foreign  manufacturies,  brought  from  abroad, 
completely  counteract  the  tariff  upon  foreign  goods?  Would 
not  an  excise  upon  all  animals  on  foot,  driven  within  the  same 
limits  teach  the  Western  people,  their  dependence  upon  the 
Southern  people,  for  a  market?  Most  certainly — Then  why  not 
teach  them  this  salutary  lessdon  (sic)  ?  Neither  East,  nor  West 
could  object — It  would  be  complimenting  their  own  favorite 
political  axiom,  Protection  of  Domestic  industry;  applied  to 
States  instead  of  United  States,  industry — It  will  and  must  come 
to  this ;  and  the  sooner  the  better — Great  intermediate  mischief 
would  be  avoided  by  it.  The  constitutional  rights  of  the  state 
governments  to  lay  such  excise,  cannot  be  doubted — The  duty 
to  protect  persons  and  things,  is  the  true  foundation  of  the 
right  to  tax  the  same  persons  and  things.  This  duty  to  pro 
tect  persons  and  things,  commences,  the  moment  they  come 
within  the  limits  of  the  respective  States.  The  duty,  and  the 
right  are  necessarily  contemperanous  (sic)  ;  and  the  exercise 
of  the  right  depends  exclusively  upon  the  discretion  of  the 
state  legislatures  respectively.  This  most  clear  and  important 
point  was  unanimously  settled  by  an  act  of  Congress  assembled, 


VIRGINIA  AFTER  THE  WAR  OF  1812  225 

the  third  March  1807  prohibiting  the  introduction  of  Slaves 
within  the  U.  S.  after  the  first  January  1808.  Suppose 
then;  that  the  States  of  Louisiana,  Alabama,  Georgia, 
South  Carolina,  North  Carolina  and  Virginia,  were  cotem- 
pranously  (sic)  to  lay  excises  as  before  stated — Where  would 
the  Eastern  people  find  a  market  for  their  manufacturies?  or 
the  Western  people  for  their  horses,  cattle,  hogs  &c.  ?  This 
measure  would  necessarily  prove  the  actual  dependence  of  the 
East  and  the  West  upon  the  South.  W'hereas  the  South  with 
all  these  natural  means,  is  artificially  made  dependent  upon  the 
East  and  the  West — and  most  unjustly  and  degradingly  plun 
dered  by  both,  'it  cannot,  will  not  come  to  good.'  What  would 
be  the  effect  of  calling  upon  the  Secretary  of  the  Treasury 
before  the  rising  of  the  present  Congress,  to  report  to  the  next ; 
upon  the  following  enqueries?  First: — What  effect  would  be 
produced  upon  the  wealth,  and  prosperity  of  the  whole  United 
States  by  the  abolition  of  all  discrimating  (sic)  duties,  and 
substituting  an  uniform  ad  valorem  duty  of  ten  per  cent  in  their 
stead?  1st  As  it  regards  agriculture,  2d  commerce,  3d  naviga 
tion,  4th  manufactures,  5th  revenue,  6th  Morals — Second: — 
Can  any  means  be  devised,  through  the  medium  of  foreign  com 
merce,  to  encourage  and  protect  aggriculture,  in  such  a  manner, 
as  to  give  50  cents  per  bushel  to  every  wheat  grower,  for  every 
bushel  of  wheat  brought  by  him  to  market — To  the  Tobacco- 
growers,  2  dollars  for  every  100  pounds. — To  the  cotton 
grower  3  dollars  for  every  100  Ibs. — To  the  rice  grower, 
one  dollar  for  every  100  pounds?  If  no  such  means  can 
be  devised,  to  report;  whether  similar  bounties  ought  not 
to  be  paid  out  of  the  public  treasury  upon  the  most  obvious 
principle  of  equality  and  justice?  Third — Whether  bounties 
upon  the  aforesaid  products,  as  the  specified  rates  afore 
said,  would  be  more,  than  equivalent  compensation  to  the 
growers  of  the  aforesaid  products,  for  the  duties  imposed  upon 
all  articles,  necessarily  consumed  in  raising  them.  I  here  deem 
it  my  duty  to  make  these  suggestions  to  you,  Gentlemen,  before 
the  rising  of  the  present  Congress,  and  beg  your  best  considera 
tion  of  them.  I  have,  a  few  days  since,  given  similar  hints  to 


226  WILLIAM  BRANCH  GILES 

Mr.  MacDuffie; — Be  pleased,  Gentlemen,  to  accept  my  most 
respectful  and  friendly  regards."642 

It  was,  however,  not  only  by  messages  and  private  letters, 
that  the  Governor  sought  to  aid  the  cause  of  strict  construction 
and  the  candidacy  of  Andrew  Jackson.  The  dignity  of  the 
high  office  he  now  occupied  caused  no  cessation  of  his  labors 
with  the  pen,  meant  no  withdrawal  from  heated  political  and 
personal  controversy,  brought  no  forgetfulness  of  his  enmity  to 
John  Quincy  Adams.  On  September  7,  1827,  Governor  Giles 
published  in  the  Enquirer  a  short  article,  accompanied  by  a 
letter  from  Jefferson  to  him  dated  December  26,  1825,643  denun 
ciatory  of  the  usurpation  of  the  Federal  Government.  Attempts 
had  been  made  to  enlist  the  name  of  Jefferson  in  support  of 
Adams's  candidacy,  and  the  publication  of  the  letter  to  Giles 
was  intended  to  demolish  such  efforts.  A  sensation  was  imme 
diately  caused.  Replies  and  counter  replies  appeared  in  the 
leading  papers  of  the  country.  Governor  and  President  and 
editors  joined  in  an  exciting  debate,  adding  zest  to  a  campaign 
already  sufficiently  fiery.  On  March  1,  1828,  appeared,  over 
the  signature  of  Giles,  another  article,  widely  copied,  which  con 
tained  five  reasons  for  his  opposition  to  Mr.  Adams's  candidacy. 
Mr.  Adams,  he  declares,  is  not  a  Republican,  is  lacking  in 
ability,  and  is  neither  an  "honest"  nor  an  "incorruptible  poli- 
tican."  Ritchie  claps  his  hand  in  applause.  To  him,  Giles  is 
gifted  "with  a  moral  courage  equal  to  that  of  any  man  liv 
ing."644 

In  the  year  1829,  there  came  from  the  pen  of  Giles  two  very 
significant  essays.  The  first  was  an  answer  to  an  inquiry  by 
Lafayette  as  to  the  practicability  of  converting  slave  labor  into 
free  labor  in  Virginia  by  the  use  of  colonization  societies.  Giles 
is  led  in  this  to  a  discusson  of  the  slavery  question.  Admitting 
slavery  to  be  an  evil,  he  thinks  no  remedy  for  it  has  been  found. 
The  evil,  too,  has  been  greatly  exaggerated.  The  interesting 
portion  of  the  article,  however,  is  the  evidence  adduced  on  the 

642  This  letter  is  in  the  Tazewell  Collection  and  kindly  furnished,  along 
with  others,  by  Mr.  E.  J.  Woodhouse  of  Yale  University. 
648  Referred    to    above. 
6"  Enquirer,  March  25,  1828. 


VIRGINIA  AFTER  THE  WAR  OF  1812  227 

subject  of  slavebreeding  in  Virginia.  Slavetraders,  carrying 
slaves  from  Virginia  and  Maryland,  "are,"  he  declares,  "doing 
tenfold  more  in  one  year,  towards  the  removal  of  the  slave  popu 
lation  from  this  section  of  country,  than  the  Colonization  So 
ciety  .  ,  .  has  been  able  to  effect  in  twelve.  The 
extensive  scenes  of  rich  country  to  the  South  and  West,  for  the 
most  part,  but  thinly  settled,  affords  an  almost  boundless  res 
ervoir  for  the  reception  of  slaves ;  and  slave  labor  being  more 
profitable  there,  than  here,  and,  consequently,  the  price  of 
slaves  higher,  furnishes  strong  inducements  for  their  removal 
to  those  sections  of  country.  The  demand  which  exists  for 
them  there,  can  only  be  supplied  from  the  scene  of  country  de 
scribed; — the  slave  trade  from  Africa  to  that  country  being 
completely  at  an  end.  From  these  causes,  numbers  of  slaves  are 
removed  annually  from  this  scene  of  country,  and  shippd  from 
Richmond  and  Norfolk  to  New  Orleans ;  and  numbers  are  also 
carried  on  foot  to  South  Carolina,  Georgia,  Alabama,  Missis 
sippi,  Tennessee,  Kentucky  and  the  country  west  of  these  States. 
Besides,  the  slaves  thus  removed  consist  mostly  of  boys  and 
girls,  about  the  age  of  puberty,  the  period  of  life  when  propo- 
gation  is  just  commencing;  and  of  course,  their  removal 
produces  the  most  effectual  check  to  the  slave  population, 
according  to  numbers,  which  could  possibly  be  devised." 

Appended  to  the  letter  to  Lafayette  as  it  appears  in  Polit 
ical  Miscellanies  is  a  statement  from  Jos.  C.  Haley,  chief  clerk 
in  the  collector's  office  in  Richmond.  According  to  this  state 
ment,  three  thousand  negroes  a  year  were  shipped  from  Nor 
folk  during  the  years  1826-1829,  and  over  two  thousand  either 
by  land  or  by  water  from  Richmond.  No  estimate  is  made  of 
the  numbers  sent  from  Petersburg  or  other  places. 

The  other  literary  effort  of  importance  in  1829 — and  Giles's 
last  will  and  testament  to  his  people — is  significant  as  bearing 
on  the  question  of  secession.  It  is  a  series  of  articles  published 
in  the  Enquirer  from  June  to  October,  under  the  title — "Ret 
rospects."  If  the  tariff  and  internal  improvement  policies  are 
persisted  in,  disunion  is  inevitable,  he  thinks,  and,  though  it 
would  be  disastrous  to  the  whole  United  States,  it  would  not  be 


228  WILLIAM  BRANCH  GILES 

disastrous  to  each  of  the  several  states.  "A  consolidated  des 
potism  would  be  an  infinitely  greater  disaster  than  disunion." 
In  case  of  disunion,  there  might  be  four  confederacies,  New 
England,  the  Middle  States,  the  Western  States,  and  the  South. 
Nothing  but  loss  or  danger  could  come  to  the  first  three ;  to  the 
South  there  need  be  no  reason  for  fear.  "The  Southern  States 
would  be  left  to  the  enjoyment  of  all  the  good  things  their  God 
has  given  them,  and  to  which  they  have  superadded  their  own 
labor ;  the  proceeds  of  which  are  now  transferred  to  the  North 
ern  and  Western  States,  for  their  own  enjoyment."  When  the 
real  injustice  of  the  tariff  is  known,  either  the  tariff  will  have 
to  be  put  down  to  axrevenue  basis,  or  this  union  must  be  dis 
solved.  No  people  with  common  sense  "will  ever  long  submit  to 
such  an  unnatural  and  unprincipled  state  of  things."  In  the 
event  of  an  attempt  at  coercion  of  one  part  of  the  United 
States  against  another,  the  people  of  Europe  would  take 
part — and  on  the  side  of  their  interest.  Where  is  this 
interest?  With  the  part  of  the  United  States  which  sends 
them  $40,000,000  of  exports  or  with  that  part  which  sends 
them  $10,000,000?  ...  So  here  in  1829,  this  Patriarch 
Republican  has  the  whole  secession  programme  worked  out; 
intolerable  conditions ;  a  wealthy  South,  European  intervention, 
Cotton  is  king. 

Two  days  after  the  appearance  of  the  last  article  of  the 
series  described  above,  Giles  became  a  member  of  the  Virginia 
Constitutional  Convention  of  1829-30. 


CHAPTER  XV 
THE  CONVENTION  OF  1829-30 

Within  the  last  term  of  Governor  Giles,  fell  the  first  of  those 
historic  conventions  in  Virginia  called  for  the  purpose  of  revis 
ing  the  fundamental  laws  of  the  Commonwealth.  The  constitu 
tion  of  Virginia  under  which  the  state  began  its  existence  had 
been  adopted  in  1776  by  a  convention,  whose  business  had  been, 
not  only  the  adoption  of  a  constitution,  but  also  the  government 
of  the  state  at  a  time  when  the  regularly  constituted  authorities 
had  deserted  their  posts  or  lost  their  power.  Although  the  doc 
ument  had  been  written  by  a  body  not  selected  for  the  partic 
ular  purpose  of  writing  it,  and,  in  a  time  of  stress  and  conflict, 
had  been  hurriedly  thrown  together,  it  nevertheless  remained 
unchanged  for  fifty-four  years.  From  the  first,  it  had  been 
criticised  by  Jefferson,  who,  again  in  the  Notes  on  Virginia, 
published  in  1782,  had  pointed  out  in  detail  the  defects  of  that 
instrument.  Representation  in  the  House  of  Delegates  was 
equal  for  all  counties  regardless  of  size ;  suffrage  was  left  as  it 
had  been  in  colonial  times,  based  on  the  possession  of  a  freehold 
of  land ;  the  legislature  was  supreme ;  to  it,  the  Executive  was 
made  strictly  and  meekly  subordinate  because  of  the  Governor's 
election  by  the  General  Assembly;  gubernatorial  duties  and 
responsibilities  were  divided  among  nine  men;  and  the  county 
courts,  with  all  their  far-reaching  powers,  were  erected  into  a 
closed  corporation  of  leading  families.  As  time  passed,  as 
towns  grew,  as  the  population  moved  ever  more  rapidly  toward 
and  across  the  Blue  Ridge  chain  of  mountains,  as  a  Democratic 
wave  arose  and,  sweeping  over  new  and  western  states,  beat 
back  upon  the  institutions  of  the  parent  commonwealths,  the 
law  of  1776  became  more  and  more  unacceptable.  An  insistent 
clamor  was  raised  for  reform  and  amendment.  Petitions  were 
sent  down  to  the  legislature  whenever  it  met,  praying  for  the 
calling  of  a  new  convention;  Jefferson  broke  silence  in  1816 
and  again  in  1824  m  letters  which  men  might  read  in  the  news 
papers;  a  significant  convention  of  reformers  was  held  in  1816 
and  again  in  1825  at  Staunton.  By  1828,  the  movement  had 


230  WILLIAM  BRANCH  GILES 

become  too  strong  to  resist  and  so  the  legislature,  on  January 
31,  passed  an  act  authorizing  a  vote  of  the  people.  The  returns 
were  favorable  to  the  reformers,  so  the  legislature  provided  on 
February  10,  1829,  for  the  calling  of  the  convention. 

Giles  had  viewed  the  situation  with  growing  interest  since 
18 IT  when  he  had  filled  column  after  column  of  the  Enquirer845 
with  protests  against  the  movement.  The  original  constitution 
was  to  him  the  first  and  best.  Instead  of  immolating  it  on  the 
altar  of  whim,  caprice,  and  restless  discontent,  the  people  of 
Virginia,  he  thought,  ought  to  give  thanks  and  adoration  to  a 
superintending  Providence,  who  made  their  forefathers  the  in 
struments  of  handing  down  so  signal  a  blessing.  Again,  in 
1827,646  when  the  matter  had  come  before  the  legislature  while 
he  was  a  member,  he  had  delivered  a  long  and  stirring  speech 
praising  the  very  elements  of  the  constitution  which  reformers 
desired  to  change.  Now,  in  1829,  as  Governor  of  the  state,  he 
signed  the  bill  providing  for  the  meeting.  Since  it  had  to 
meet,  he  rejoiced647  that,  despite  his  illness,  his  office,  and  the 
active  campaigning  made  by  his  opponents,  he  had  been 
chosen  from  his  district  as  one  of  its  four  representatives. 

When,  on  October  5,  the  delegates  had  come  together,  the 
gathering  of  men  was  such  as  is  seldom  seen  in  Ameri 
can  history  in  one  assembly.  The  deeds  of  some  of  these  men 
formed  significant  chapters  in  the  annals  of  the  Commonwealth 
and  of  bhe  nation,  and  the  achievements  of  others  were  to  be 
the  material  for  much  of  the  work  of  the  future.  One  delegate 
had,  more  than  any  other  one  man,  written  the  constitution 
of  the  nation,  and  battled  for  its  ratification  in  the  Old 
Dominion,  had  been  Congressman,  Secretary  of  State,  and,  for 
eight  years,  President  of  the  Republic.  The  presiding  officer, 
chosen  this  fifth  of  October,  had  twice  been  Governor  of  the 
state,  represented  his  country  at  three  foreign  courts,  held  two 
cabinet  offices,  and,  succeeding  him  of  whom  we  have  just  spoken, 
had  given  to  the  world  the  famous  Monroe  doctrine.  There, 

««Feb.  and  March. 

646  Jan.  26.  Speech  in  Political  Miscellanies  and  in  Enquirer,  March 
1,  3,  1827. 

C4T  Executive  Letter  Book,  June  24,  1829. 


THE  CONVENTION  OF  1829-30  231 

too,  was  the  judge  who  had  presided  over  the  trial  of  a  Vice- 
president  and  who  had,  by  his  far-reaching  decisions,  not  only 
made  for  himself  an  imperishable  name  in  the  history  of  Juris 
prudence,  but,  as  much  as  any  one  man,  had  given  direction  to 
the  current  of  political  thought  among  his  countrymen.  There 
was  present  the  eccentric  and  pathetic  but  brilliant  John 
Randolph  of  Roanoke — who,  more  than  any  other,  attracted 
the  crowds  that  came  from  Virginia  and  surrounding  territory 
to  hear  the  debates  of  this  famous  assembly.  Congressmen,  sena 
tors,  judges,  governors,  cabinet  officers,  and  presidents,  past 
and  future,  with  a  power  born  of  mighty  ambition  or  rich  ex 
perience,  fought  out  on  this  arena  questions  of  political  science 
and  constitutional  law.  Par  inter  pares,  though  leaning  upon 
his  crutches  and  suffering  from  recent  illness,  appeared  William 
B.  Giles — the  hero  of  many  a  parliamentary  conflict,  the 
Charles  James  Fox  of  American  debate — as  his  admirers  down 
to  the  present  have  loved  to  call  him.  "He  was  not  expected," 
says  one  who  was  present,  "to  take  that  active  part  in  the  dis 
cussions  which  he  had  been  wont  to  assume  in  former  days.  He 
was  regarded  as  the  leader  of  the  reserve  corps,  ready  to  bring 
up  his  powerful  reinforcement,  when  it  should  be  needed."648 

On  frequent  occasions,  he  was,  however,  to  take  very  ener 
getic  and  conspicuous  part.  Giles  stood  in  the  ranks  of  the 
opponents  of  reform,  of  the  friends  of  eastern  Virginia.  For 
it  was,  in  the  main,  a  fight  of  Tidewater  and  the  Piedmont 
against  the  valley  and  the  Trans-Allegheny  sections  of  the 
state.  The  transmontane  regions  demanded  a  white  basis  for 
representation ;  the  east  demanded  a  mixed  basis  of  white  popu 
lation  and  taxation.  The  west  thought  it  unjust  that  forty- 
seven  per  cent  of  the  population  should  have  only  thirty-three 
per  cent  of  the  representation.  They  could  not  see  how  it  was 
reasonable  that  Warwick  county  in  Tidewater,  with  six  hundred 
and  eighty-eight  free  white  inhabitants,  should  have  ten  votes 
in  the  House  of  Delegates  while  the  county  of  Shenandoah  in 
the  Valley,  with  nineteen  thousand,  five  hundred  and  eleven  free 
white  inhabitants,  should  have  only  the  same  power.  On  the 

648  Pleasants  in  Southern  Literary  Messenger,  xvii,  147. 


232  WILLIAM  BRANCH  GILES 

other  hand,  the  east  did  not  see  the  justice  in  handing  over  the 
control  of  the  state  to  that  section  which  paid  the  smaller  por 
tion  of  state  taxation,  especially  as  the  property  of  the  east  was 
partly  in  slaves,  which  the  small  farmers  and  millers  or  miners 
of  the  west  might  emancipate.  Eastern  \irgmia  demanded 
protection  for  its  peculiar  institution,  just  as  eastern  South 
Carolina  had  done,  and  just  as  Calhoun  was  demanding  for  the 
slave  holding  minority  of  the  nation.  After  all  theorizing  about 
the  fundamental  principles  of  law  and  government,  everyone 
knew  that  Hezekiah  Niles  was  right  when  he  said :  "The  greatest 
question  before  the  Virginia  convention  is  the  perpetual  dura 
tion  of  negro  slavery,"649  and  that  Monroe  read  the  feelings  of 
the  members  correctly  when  he  declared  that  "if  no  such  thing 
as  slavery  existed,  the  people  of  the  Atlantic  border  would  meet 
their  brethren  of  the  west,  upon  the  basis  of  a  majority  of  the 
free  white  population."650 

On  the  fundamental  question  of  the  basis  of  representation, 
Giles  spoke  portions  of  two  days,  and  made  a  profound  im 
pression.  "We  recollect,"  says  a  writer  in  the  Southern  Lite 
rary  Messenger,  "to  have  heard  him  speak  but  once  during  the 
session  of  the  Convention,  but  we  could  well  conceive  that  in  his 
palmy  days  he  must  have  been  a  host  in  himself. 
His  style  of  speaking  was  very  different  from  anything  we  saw, 
even  at  that  day,  and  evidently  belonged  to  another  period.  He 
indulged  in  none  of  the  frantic  gesticulations  with  which  orators 
of  the  present  and  of  a  long  preceding  day  were  wont  to  give 
force  to  their  arguments.  He  neither  vociferated  until  he  was 
unintelligible,  nor  grew  hoarse  of  utterance,  nor  became  red  in 
the  face,  nor  sweated  like  a  cart  horse  in  the  effort  to  give  birth 
to  his  ideas.  His  manner  resembled  that  of  a  man  engaged  in 
earnest  conversation — his  tone  was  animated,  as  his  genius 
rose,  but  it  never  became  harsh  or  boisterous.  His  words  ap 
peared  to  flow  in  a  continued,  uninterrupted,  lucid  stream, 
strong  it  is  true,  but  strong  without  fury,  pregnant  with 
thought,  but  full  without  overflowing.  The  great  powers  of  his 

648  Niles   Register,   XXXVII,   145. 
6(30  Debates  of  the  Convention,  149. 


THE  CONVENTION  OF  1829-30  233 

understanding  were  apparent,  from  the  very  marked  effect 
which  he  produced  on  the  Convention."6 

Beginning  his  speech  with  an  ardent  expression  of  a  desire 
for  harmony,  he  entered  into  an  elaborate  defence  of  the  con 
stitution  adopted  by  the  fathers  during  the  troublous  days  of 
revolution.  That  constitution  was  the  "best  constitution  that 
was  ever  presented  to  any  people  under  the  sun."  It  was  not,  as 
charged,  thrown  hurriedly  and  carelessly  together  on  account 
of  the  imminent  danger  surrounding  the  famous  convention  of 
1776.  Its  adoption  opened  indeed  "an  aera  in  the  science  of 
politics."  Out  of  that  blessed  "aera"  we  had  passed  into  the 
degenerate  days  of  a  Federal  government  possessing  enormous 
power  and  patronage,  enacting  protective  tariffs,  schemes  of 
internal  improvement,  and  the  whole  American  system.  "The 
best  improvement  that  could  be  adopted  now  would  be  the  trans 
ference  of  the  present  Virginia  system  to  the  Government  of  the 
nation."  Having  lauded  the  work  of  George  Mason  to  the  skies, 
as  the  sacred  document  under  which  we  had  so  happily  and 
prosperously  lived  for  fifty-four  years,  Governor  Giles  took 
up  each  of  the  alleged  defects  of  that  holy  writing  and  found 
that  alleged  defect  to  be  a  real  jewel  of  excellence.  Was  the 
executive  said  to  be  powerless — to  lack  energy?  But  "if  we  have 
had  an  Executive  in  Virginia,  which  has  gone  on  so  smoothly,  so 
easily,  so  little  known,  and  scarcely  felt  for  fifty-four  years, 
discharging  all  its  duties,"  why  should  it  now  be  changed?  As 
to  want  of  power  in  the  Executive,  so  far  as  his  experience 
had  gone,  although  he  had  been  often  accused  of  an  inordinate 
love  of  power,  he  then  had  as  much  power  as  he  wished  to  have, 
or  ought  to  have,  or  as  any  other  human  being  should  ever  have. 
Executive  patronage  and  power  were  the  sure  causes  of  all 
political  mischiefs. 

Did  one  say  the  suffrage  was  now  illiberal,  that  it  was  unfair 
to  impose  a  freehold  restriction  on  land?  But  this,  it  was 
answered,  was  a  mark  of  the  "wisdom  of  our  forefathers"  and 
"the  wisest  provision  that  ever  was  made  in  any  Constitution, 
is  that  which  declares  that  the  right  of  suffrage  should  remain 

661  Southern  Literary  Messenger,  vol.  17,  297, 


234  WILLIAM  BRANCH  GILES 

as  it  then  was."652  "Look  at  every  State  where  Suffrage  has 
been  extended  to  Universal  suffrage  and  you  will  see  universal 
disorder,  intoxication,  and  demoralization  of  all  sorts" — for 
instance,  New  York  which  had  "conferred  a  blessing  on  them 
selves,  by  extending  the  right  of  suffrage  to  people  of  all  colors, 
red,  black,  white  and  yellow."  Was  the  system  of  county  courts 
criticised  as  inefficient  and  corrupt?  However,  "the  organiza 
tion  of  the  County  Courts  is  marked  with  peculiar  wisdom." 
This  system  we  had  received  directly  from  our  Anglo-Saxon 
Ancestors — indeed  from  a  period  antedating  the  present  by 
1500  years. 

In  defending  the  eastern  position  on  the  great  crucial  sub 
ject  of  the  basis  of  representation,  Giles  fell  back  on  the  doc 
trines  of  John  Locke  and  found  a  preexisting  State  of  Nature, 
the  formation  of  a  social  contract,  and  the  erection  of  "free, 
legitimate"  governments  for  the  protection  of  both  persons 
and  property.  The  Bill  of  Rights,  from  which  western  men 
drew  so  many  arrows  of  argument,  gave  no  trouble  to  Giles, 
even  if  it  did  declare  all  men  "by  nature,  equally  free  and  inde 
pendent"  for  "the  Bill  of  Rights  detracted  nothing  from  the 
Constitution  by  preceding  it,"  and  was  "an  essential  part  of 
the  Constitution."  Nor  could  he  see  any  injustice  done  the 
west  by  giving  the  east  representation  for  the  protection  of  its 
property;  for  the  eastern  people  had  both  persons  and  prop 
erty  to  protect  and  could  not  make  war  on  the  west  by  harmful 
legislation  without  at  the  same  time  doing  themselves  an  injury. 
But  if  the  white  basis  were  adopted  and  power  put  in  the  hands 
of  the  west,  the  people  on  the  other  side  of  the  Ridge  could 
injure  the  property  of  the  east  without  injuring  their  own 
because  of  the  difference  in  property  owned  by  the  two 
sections — the  disproportion  of  slaves.  For  Giles  was  frank 
enough  to  admit  that  the  curse  of  slavery,  whose  protection, 
however,  he  so  zealously  demanded,  was  the  "stumbling  block" 
confronting  the  convention  at  its  very  threshhold,  and  interpos 
ing  to  interrupt  the  "happy  spirit"  of  the  discussion. 

652  The  Constitution  of  1776  merely  adopted  the  then  existing  suffrage 
arrangement. 


THE  CONVENTION  or  1829-30  235 

Indeed,  the  happy  spirit  of  the  discussion  was  at  times  very 
sadly  interrupted.  Talk  of  breaking  the  convention,  of  the 
formation  of  a  new  state  in  the  west,  even  of  the  separation 
of  the  Union,  and  of  the  dreadful  vicissitudes  of  civil  strife  for 
the  whole  Union,  was  heard  in  and  out  of  the  Assembly.  And 
Giles  gave  it  as  his  own  sober  opinion  that  "the  forcible  separa 
tion  of  Virginia,  must  and  will  lead  to  a  separation  of  the  United 
States,  come  when  it  will.  .  .  .  Whenever  the  awful 
occasion  should  arise  for  calling  in  force  to  settle  collisions  and 
divisions  amongst  ourselves,  the  destinies  of  this  country  will 
not  be  settled  by  the  physical  force  on  the  west  side  of  the 
Ridge,  nor  of  the  whole  United  States  alone  .  .  .  the 
physical  forces  of  the  commercial  nations  of  Europe,  would 
settle  the  destinies  of  the  country  in  that  deprecated  event. 
In  such  a  case,  New  York  would  have  more  to  dread  than 
Richmond  and  people  east  of  Virginia  could  hold  out  to  Europe 
"the  most  attractive  and  influential  douceur  that  could  pos 
sibly  be  offered — Commerce — the  most  valuable  and  seductive 
in  the  world."  Here  again,  we  have  one  of  the  fatal  theories  on 
which  secession  was  to  be  based  in  1860. 

In  the  "basis"  speech  which  I  have  now  outlined,  Giles  made 
clear  his  position  on  all  the  important  matters  to  come  before 
the  convention.  He  announced  himself  a  representative  of 
the  east,  of  the  slave-holding  aristocracy,  of  the  conservative 
property  interests  of  the  state,  opposed,  as  usual,  to  change 
and  reform  for  fear  of  endangering  its  security.  Not  a  disciple 
of  Jefferson  now  burning  with  the  sense  of  all  injustices,  and 
eager  to  spread  the  blessings  of  democracy,  did  Giles  stand  in 
local  politics,  but  rather  with  those  who,  like  John  Randolph, 
were  prepared  to  deny  the  authority  of  the  author  of  the  Dec 
laration  except  on  "the  mechanism  of  a  plow."653 

Besides  delivering  the  speech  on  the  basis,  Giles  took  active 
part  in  the  discussion  of  the  arrangements  for  the  Executive — 
in  which  he  was  peculiarly  interested — and  the  Judiciary.  On 
one  feature  of  the  latter,  occurred  the  most  able  and  eloquent 
debate  during  the  whole  convention.  The  Judiciary  committee 

"•See  Ambler,  Sectionalism,  161. 


236  WILLIAM  BRANCH  GILES 

had  reported  that  "no  modification  or  abolition  of  any  court 
shall  be  construed  to  deprive  any  judge  thereof  of  his  office." 
Here  was  the  same  question  discussed  by  Giles  in  1802,  when  the 
Republicans  in  their  early  fervor  were  abolishing  the  Circuit 
Courts  established  for  the  comfortable  refuge  of  Hamiltonians 
just  before  the  retirement  of  the  Federalist  party  from 
the  control  of  the  nation.  And  adding  to  the  dramatic  charac 
ter  of  the  conflict  now  was  the  appearance  on  opposing  sides 
of  John  Marshall,  just  rewarded  in  1801  for  his  zealous  Fed 
eralism,  and  William  B.  Giles,  the  floor  leader  of  the  Republican 
party  at  that  time,  and  the  bitterest  political  enemy  who  ever 
attacked  the  great  Chief-Justice.654  Fighting  side  by  side 
against  Judge  Marshall  were  now  Littleton  Waller  Tazewell, 
later  Governor  of  the  State,  and  Philip  Pendleton  B  arbour, 
later  to  be  Associate  Justice  of  the  Supreme  Court  of  the  United 
States.  One  who  listened  to  that  debate  declared  it  was  "one 
of  the  most  brilliant  exhibitions  of  the  convention."655  The 
question  was  settled  by  placing  in  the  completed  constitution 
the  provision  that  "no  law  abolishing  any  court  shall  be  con 
strued  to  deprive  a  judge  thereof  of  his  office,  unless  two-thirds 
of  the  members  of  each  House  present  concur  in  the  passing 
thereof."656 

On  January  15,  1880,  the  convention  finished  its  work.  The 
conservatives  had  won.  An  unsatisfactory  compromise  had 
been  adopted  for  the  distribution  of  representation.  The  suf 
frage  was  extended  to  leaseholders  and  householders.  The  gov 
ernment  of  counties  still  remained  in  the  hands  of  justices.  The 
term  of  the  Executive  was  extended  to  three  years  and  the 
Council  was  reduced  from  eight  to  three  in  number. 

Less  than  two  months  after  the  end  of  the  convention  ex 
pired  Mr.  Giles's  term  as  Governor.  He  had  then  finished  his 
work.  Retiring  in  ill  health  to  Wigwam,  his  home  in  Amelia 
county,  he  could  only  wait  the  inevitable  early  summons.  In 
April,  he  was  again  elected  by  his  faithful  people  of  Amelia 


654  They  had,  however,  become  friends. 
656  Grigsby—  Convention  of  1829-1830. 
656  Constitution  of  1830,  Article  V:  2. 


THE  CONVENTION  OF  1829-30  237 

county  to  represent  them  in  the  Legislature,  but  feeling  the  end 
was  near,  he  thanked  them  for  their  unswerving  loyalty  in  the 
past  and  declined  from  necessity  their  last  honor.  On  Decem 
ber  4,  1830,  the  fires  of  his  spirit  burned  out.  The  bar  of  the 
county,  "in  consideration  of  the  eminent  services  of  the  de 
ceased  and  as  a  testimony  of  their  respect  for  his  elevated  char 
acter,"  wore  crepe  for  thirty  days.657  And  Thomas  Ritchie,  on 
December  9,  declared  "a  great  man  has  fallen  in  Israel."  No 
man  knew  him  better  than  Ritchie,  who  had  supported  him 
and  criticised  him,  and  the  judgment  of  the  famous  editor  now 
is  not  without  importance. 

"Mr.  Giles,  in  point  of  native  ability,  was  one  of  the  first 
men  of  his  country,  and  of  his  age.  His  views  were  extensive, 
the  moral  force  of  his  character  equal  to  that  of  any  man  we 
have  ever  known,  and  he  was  one  of  the  first  parliamentary  de 
baters  of  his  time.  He  has  been  in  public  life  for  nearly  40 
years,  distinguished  in  every  station  which  he  filled;  in  the 
State  Legislature,  in  both  Houses  of  Congress,  in  the  Executive 
chair,  and  in  the  Convention  of  Virginia,  he  has  always  been 
in  the  first  rank — and  has  left  the  traces  of  his  great  talents 
upon  the  history  of  his  country.  For  several  years  he  has 
been  afflicted  by  a  severe  malady ;  but  nothing  could  depress  the 
Energy  of  his  mind.  At  length,  his  frame  yielded  to  the  re 
peated  attacks — and  he  is  gone  forever."658 

857  Order  Book  of  the  Court  of  Amelia,  December  Court,  1830,  208. 
™  Enquirer,  Dec.   9,   1830. 


ILLUSTRATIONS 

The  original  of  the  frontispiece  is  a  miniature  owned  by  Mrs. 
James  W.  Sharp,  formerly  Miss  Elizabeth  Townes,  a  great 
grand-daughter  of  Governor  Giles.  It  was  painted  in  1813  by 
an  unknown  artist. 

A  letter  dated  February  6,  1813,  written  by  Senator  Giles 
to  his  wife  says:  "The  miniature  painter  called  on  me  at  the 
Senate-Chamber  this  morning,  and  I  immediately  returned  with 
him  to  my  chambers  and  had  one  sitting  for  the  miniature.  He 
requested  me  to  say  to  you  that  you  may  be  assured  of  a 
striking  and  animated  likeness.  This  occurrence  is  particularly 
agreable  to  me,  as  I  hope  it  may  contribute  in  some  small  degree 
to  the  happiness  of  my  beloved  Frances,  and  to  see  her  happy 
would  be  the  delight  of  my  heart." 

Another  miniature  was  owned  by  the  late  Mrs.  William  Over- 
ton  of  Louisa  County,  Virginia.  Its  history  seems  to  be  un 
known. 

The  picture  of  Giles  facing  page  207  is  from  a  life  size  origi 
nal  painted  by  Chester  Harding  in  1829  and  now  in  possession 
of  the  Virginia  Historical  Society.  Harding  came  to  Richmond 
while  the  Convention  of  1829-30  was  in  session,  especially  to 
"take  the  heads"  of  members  of  that  body.  He  painted  portraits 
of  Chief  Justice  Marshall,  John  Randolph  of  Roanoke,  Gover 
nor  William  B.  Giles,  and  others — eighteen  in  all.  On  the  death 
of  Governor  Giles,  the  Harding  potrait  became  the  property  of 
William  B.  Giles,  Jr. 

It  was  regarded  as  an  excellent  likness  of  Governor  Giles — 
Giles  in  old  age  and  worsted  by  disease.  A  portrait  of  him  by 
Gilbert  Stuart  made  about  1795,  now  in  the  possession  of 
Clarence  B.  Bowen,  of  Brooklyn,  N.  Y.  shows  him  to  have  been 
a  handsome  man.  Two  miniatures  of  him — one  of  them  made 
in  1813  and  the  other,  it  is  thought,  earlier,  bear  the  same 
testimony.  There  is  a  third  portrait,  painted  in  1816  by  Bass 
Otis  in  Boston,  and  now  in  the  possession  of  Mrs.  Frances 
Gwynn  Townes  of  Richmond. 


ILLUSTRATIONS  239 

Plates  of  the  five  original  extant  pictures  of  Giles  appear  in 
"The  History  of  the  Celebration  of  the  first  Inauguration  of 
George  Washington  as  first  President  of  the  United  States" 
(1892)  edited  by  C.  W.  Bowen,  p.  112.  Interesting  notes  are 
given — though  the  notes  are  not  altogether  accurate. 


BIBLIOGRAPHY 

I  have  not  attempted  in  the  following  list  to  include  all  the 
titles  which  I  have  used.  An  exhaustive  bibliography  would 
take  in  a  large  part  of  the  material  bearing  on  American  and 
Virginia  history  from  1790  to  1830,  and  would  make  a  volume  of 
its  own.  The  following,  however,  have  been  of  service,  par 
ticularly  the  manuscript  and  newspaper  material. 

I.    MANUSCRIPT 

Adams,   Henry — Transcripts    of   letters    of   public    men. 

In  the  three  volumes  loaned  me  by  Mr.  Adams 
there  are  no  Giles  letters  but  some  letters  of  interest 
in  the  study  of  the  Jeffersonian  party.  Some  of 
the  originals  of  these  letters  are  now  in  the  Library 
of  Congress. 

Cab  ell,  N.  F. — Manuscripts  relating  to  the  history  of  agriculture  in 
Virginia,  collected  by  N.  F.  Cabell;  one  bound  vo 
lume  in  Virginia  State  Library. 

Among  these  papers  are  autograph  letters  of 
distinguished  Virginians  interested  in  agricultural 
improvements  particularly  after  1812,  and  a  valuable 
bibliography  of  Virginia  agriculture  by  Mr.  Cabell. 

A  complete  list  of  this  material  is  contained  in 
a  pamphlet  issued  in  1913  by  the  Virginia  State 
Library,  and  edited  by  Assistant  Librarian,  Earl 
G.  Swem. 

Commissioners  of  the  Revenue,  Personal  Property  Books  for  Amelia 
County. 

The  Virginia  State  Library  has  the  commissioners' 
books  for  all  the  counties  from  1782  to  1863. 
Executive  Letter  Books — Virginia  State  Library. 

These  letter  books  contain  contemporary  transcripts 
of  Governors'  official  letters. 

Giles's  letters  are  found  in  volumes  for  1827-1830. 
Executive  Papers — Miscellaneous — Virginia  State  Library. 

In  the  1136  boxes  of  these  papers  is  much  valu 
able  material.  Original  drafts  in  Giles's  handwrit 
ing,  of  the  letters  copied  in  the  Executive  Letter 
Books,  are  found  in  the  boxes  for  1827-1830. 

Giles  Utters  found  in  numerous  collections.  There  is  no  collection 
of  Giles  papers.  Such  as  there  were,  were  probably 
destroyed  in  the  Richmond  fire  in  1865.  By  per 
sistent  searching  in  various  libraries  and  private  col 
lections,  I  have  found,  however,  a  number  of  inter 
esting  letters. 


BIBLIOGRAPHY  241 

The  Jefferson,  Madison,  Monroe,  and  Van  Buren  Manuscripts,  Library 

of    Congress. 

These   manuscripts    contain    some   valuable   letters 

by  and  to  Giles.    Many  of  them,  not  bearing  directly 

on  Giles  himself,  throw  light  on  the  events  in  which 

he    took    part. 
Order  Books,  Will  Books,  and  Deed   Books   of  Amelia  County  in  the 

Clerk's   office,   Amelia  Court   House. 
Petitions    to    the    General     Assembly    of    Virginia     1778-1861— Virginia 

State    Library. 
The   Virginia  Historical   Society   Collections. 

There   is   little   of    importance,   however,    in    these 

collections,  bearing  on  Giles. 

II.     WORKS  OF  PUBLIC  MEN 

Adams,  John — Works,  with  a  life  of  the  author,  notes  and  illustrations, 
edited  by  Charles  Francis  Adams.  Boston,  1850-1856. 
10  vols. 

Adams,  John  Quincy — Memoirs;  comprising  parts  of  his  diary  from 
1795  to  1848,  Philadelphia,  1874-1877.  12  vols. 

In  later  years,  Giles  and  Adams  were  bitter  enemies 
and  the  Memoirs  reflects  this  enmity.  Aside  from  its 
bitterness  of  tone,  the  Memoirs  is  of  inestimable 
value. 

Ames,  Fisher — Works — with  a  selection  from  his  speeches  and  corres 
pondence.  Edited  by  Seth  Ames.  Boston,  1854, 

2  volumes. 

Gallatin,  A Ibert— Writings,  edited  by  Henry  Adams.    Philadelphia,  1879. 

3  vols. 

Gallatin  and  Giles  became  hostile  to  each  other 
in  1809. 

Gibbs,  George — Memoirs  of  the  administrations  of  Washington  and  John 
Adams.  New  York,  1820.  2  vols. 

Consists  largely  of  letters  of  prominent  Federal 
ists. 
Giles,    William    Branch — 

Address  of  the  Honorable  William  B.  Giles  to  the  people 
of    Virginia.     1813.     123    p. 

In  this  pamphlet  Giles  defends  himself  for  his  op 
position    to    the    Madison    administration. 
Letter  from  William  B.  Giles,  esquire,  senator  in  Congress, 
to  the   Honorable  the  Legislature  of  Virginia.      [Washing 
ton,  1812].    29,  (1)  p. 

This   letter   explains    his   position    on   the    subject 
of  instructions  to  senators   and  the   censure   of  him 
and  Senator  Brent  by  the  legislature  for  their  con 
duct  on  bill  to  recharter  U.  S.  Bank. 
Speech     ...     in  the  Senate  on  the  bill  for  renewing  the 
charter  of  the  United  States  Bank.    n.  p.  n.  d.    32  p. 


242  WILLIAM  BRANCH  GILES 

Speech    ...     on     the     bill    .     .     .     entitled,     "An     act 

to   repeal   certain  acts   respecting  the  organization  of   the 

courts    of    the    U.    States."      Delivered    .     .     .     February, 

1802.     Washington  and  Boston,  1802.     20  p. 

Mr.    Giles's    speech,    delivered    in    Senate    of    the    United 

States,  on  Thursday  24  November,  1808,  on  the  resolutions 

of    Mr.    Hillhouse    to    repeal    the    embargo    laws.     Several 

editions— Washington,  Baltimore,  Salem,   1808.     36,  20,  23, 

20,  28  p.  respectively. 

Second  Speech  of  Mr.  W.   Giles,  delivered  in  the  Senate 

of  the  United  States  December  2,  1808;  on  the  resolution 

offered  by  Mr.  Hillhouse  to  repeal  the  several  acts  laying 

an  embargo.     Boston,  1808.  20  p. 

The  New  Embargo  Law,  and  Mr.   Giles's   Speech  on  the 

same,    n.p.n.d.  23  p. 

Speech  delivered  by  Mr.  Giles,  in  the  Senate,  on  the  13th 

February  1809;  in  support  of  the  following  resolution  [for 

the   repeal   of  the   Embargo  laws]    moved  by  him  on  the 

8th  of  the  same  month,    n.p.n.d.  [Washington?  1809]  p.  40. 

Speech     ...     on    raising    an    additional    military    force. 

Washington,  1811. 

The  speeches  of  Mr.  Giles  and  Mr.  Bayard  in  the  House 

of   Representatives   of  the   United   States,   February    1802. 

On  the   bill   received    from  the   Senate   entitled,   "An  act 

to  repeal  certain  acts  respecting  the  organization  of  the 

courts  of  the  United  States."     Boston  and  Hartford,  1802. 

56  p. 

Speeches  in  Congress  by  W.  B.  Giles,  S.  Smith;  and  Judge 

Anderson  on  repeal   of  the   Embargo  Laws.     Washington, 

1808. 

Mr.    Clay's    speech    upon    the    tariff    .     .     .     Mr.    Giles's 

speech    upon   the    resolution,    of   inquiry   in   the    House    of 

Delegates  of  Virginia  in  reply  to  Mr.  Clay's  speech:  also 

his  speech  in  reply  to  General  Taylor's     .     .     .     Richmond, 

1827.  p.   188.     Also  republished  in  "Political  Miscellanies," 

see  below. 

"To  the  Public": 

This  consists  of  letters  of  William  B.  Giles,  Archi 
bald  Stuart,  T.  J.  Randolph,  executor  of  Thomas 
Jefferson.  [Richmond,  1828].  p.  17. 

Relates  to  Jefferson's  opinion  of  J.  Q.  Adams  and 
Giles's  publication  of  a  letter  of  Jefferson  to  him  on 
Adams's  turning  Republican  in  1808  and  his  apostasy 
from  Republican  principles  later. 

Plain  matters  of  fact     .     .     .     n.  p.n.d.  p.  57. 

This  consists  of  articles  reprinted  from  the  Rich 
mond  Enquirer  in  1828  attacking  Adams  and  Clay. 

Political   Miscellanies    .     .     .     Richmond,    1829. 
This    compilation    is    made    up    of    speeches    and 


BIBLIOGRAPHY  243 

articles  previously  published  in  the  Enquirer  and  in 
smaller  pamphlets.  The  different  sections  have  dis 
tinct  pagination.  The  titles  of  the  parts  of  which 
the  book  is  composed  are  as  follows:* 

1.  Mr.  Clay's  speech  upon  the  tariff  or  the  "Ameri 
can   system"   so   called,   or   the   Anglican   system,   in 
fact,     ... 

Mr.  Giles's  speech  upon  the  resolutions  of  inquiry 
in  the  House  of  Delegates  of  Virginia  in  reply  to 
Mr.  Clay's  speech:  Also  his  speech  in  reply  to  Gen. 
Taylor's  accompanied  with  sundry  other  interesting 
subjects  and  original  documents  .  .  .  Richmond, 
1827.  123  p. 

2.  Report  of  the   select  committee    [Feb.  2,   1829] 
on  the  resolutions  of  Georgia  and  South  Carolina,  as 
submitted  by  William  O.  Goode,  esq.,  member  of  the 
House  of  Delegates,  from  Mecklenburg  County.    12  p. 

3.  [Mr.  Giles's  Speech  delivered  in  the  House  of 
Delegates,  Jan.  26,  1827,  against  a  bill  providing  for 
the  calling  of  a  constitutional  convention].  28  p. 

4.  Debate  on  the  bill  for  the  punishment  of  treason 
and  of  other  crimes  and  offences  against  the  United 
States  in  the  Senate  of  the  United  States,  Feb.,  1808. 
[Mr.  Giles's  speech],  16  p. 

5.  Political  Disquisitions.     [A  series  of  articles  re- 
published     from    the    Richmond    Enquirer    on    Mr. 
Adams's  message  respecting  internal  improvements]. 
7  and  43  p. 

6.  Political  Disquisitions — no.    V — or,  the  Missouri 
Question.    8  p. 

7.  [An  Attack  on  Adams   and  Clay  published  in 
the  Enquirer  April  9,  1824,  and  four  numbers  of  a 
series—  entitled],  "Political  Schemers— Hard  Tunes," 
on  the  clergy,   funding,  banks,  tariff.     31   p. 

8.  ...     Political     Disquisitions     [nos.     VII    to 
XII]    Raymond's    Elements   of   Political    Economy — 
or,  the  text-book  of  the  new  political  school.     40  p. 

9.  Political   Disquisitions    [XIII   to   XIV].     These 
continue  the  discussion  of  Raymond's  Political  Econ 
omy.    25  p. 

10.  Retrospects — no.    VIII.      Messrs.    Daniel    Ray 
mond,    John    Quincy    Adams,    and    Henry    Clay — an 
affiliated    Triumvirate    in    the  elements    of    Political 
Economy     .     .     .     12  p. 

*  "The  Table  of  Contents"  is  not  a  reliable  guide  to 
the  actual  contents  of  the  book. 


244  WILLIAM  BRANCH  GILES 

11.  [Correspondence   between  Giles   and   Jefferson, 
1825,  with  references  to  the  circumstances  under  which 
Adams  became  Republican  and  a  series  republished 
from   the   Enquirer   of    1825   entitled],    "The   Golden 
Casket — or,  the  President's  Message,  or  a  proclama 
tion   of  a   great  civil   revolution,   in   the  Government 
of  the  Union."     105  p. 

12.  [A   Letter  to  General  La  Fayette  dated   Aug. 
20,  1829,  in  answer  to  an  inquiry  as  to  the  work  of 
the  American  Colonization  Society.]     20  p. 

This  letter  is  valuable  for  a  study  of  the  shipping 
of  slaves  from  Virginia  to  the  south. 

13.  Political  Disquisitions    [nos.    I   to   III]     .     .     . 
These  numbers  are  on  slavery.     27  and  3  p. 

14.  Lectures  on  the  restrictive  system  delivered  to 
the  Senior  Political  Class  of  William  and  Mary  Col 
lege  by  Thomas  R.  Dew,  Professor  of  History,  Meta 
physics  and  Political  Law.     Richmond,  1829.  vii,  195. 
195. 

[Letters  addressed  to  the  people  of  the  United 
States,  by  a  native  of  Virginia;  on  the  subject  of  il 
legal  and  improper  disbursements  of  the  public  mon 
ey,  etc.  Part  1st  ...  Baltimore,  1822.  p.  59. 
Also  published  under  the  following  title:  Public  de 
faulters  brought  to  light,  in  a  series  of  letters  to 
the  people  of  the  United  States,  by  a  native  of  Vir 
ginia.  New  York,  1822.  p.  54. 

These  two  pamphlets  are  usually  attributed  to 
Giles.  They  are  anonymous  and  I  have  found  no 
reason  to  attribute  them  to  Giles]. 

Hamilton,  Alexander — Works,  edited  by  H.  C.  Lodge.  New  York,  1885- 
1886.  9  vols. 

Jefferson,  Thomas— Writings,  edited  by  P.  L.  Ford.  New  York,  1904- 
1905.  10  vols. 

Writings  .  .  .  being  his  autobiography,  corres 
pondence  .  .  .  and  other  writings  edited  by  H. 
A.  Washington.  Washington,  1853-1854.  9  vols. 
The  Writings  of  Thomas  Jefferson — Library  edition. 
Washington,  1903.  20  vols.  Issued  under  the  aus- 
pieces  of  the  Jefferson  Memorial  Association  of  the 
United  States.  Edited  by  Andrew  P.  Lipscomb. 
Contains  useful  index. 

Notes  on  the  State  of  Virginia  [1782]  and  sub 
sequent  editions. 

Madison  James — Letters  and  other  writings.  Philadelphia,  1865.  4  vols. 
Writings,  edited  by  Gaillard  Hunt.  New  York,  1900- 
1910.  9  vols. 


BIBLIOGRAPHY  245 

Monroe  James— Writings,  edited  by  S.  M.  Hamilton.  New  York,  1898- 
1903.  7  vols. 

Washington,  George— Writings,  edited  by  W.  C.  Ford.  New  York,  1889. 
14  vols. 

Writings  .  .  .  being  his  correspondence,  address 
es,  messages,  and  other  papers,  official  and  private, 
edited  by  Jared  Sparks.  Boston  1837.  12  vols. 

Webster,  Daniel— Letters,  edited  by  C.  H.  Van  Tyne.    New  York,  1902. 

III.    DOCUMENTS,  OFFICIAL  AND  UNOFFICIAL  COLLECTIONS 

Adams,  Henry  [editor] — Documents  relating  to  New  England  Federal 
ism.  1800-1815.  Boston,  1877. 

Contains  along  with  other  documents  articles  writ 
ten  by  Giles  [republished  from  the  Richmond  En 
quirer]  in  a  controversy  with  John  Quincy  Adams  in 
1828. 

American  State  Papers — Documents   from  the  first  session  of  the  first 
Congress   to   1838.     Gales   and   Seaton,   1832-1860. 
The    following   series    have   been    of   use   to   me: 
Military,    7    vols.,    covering    1789-1838. 
Foreign,   6   vols.,  covering   1789-1828. 
Ames,  H.  V.  [editor]— State  documents  on  federal  relations  (1789-1861). 

New  York,  1907. 

Annals  of  the  Congress  of  the  United  States  published  by  Gales  and 
Seaton.  1834-1856.  42  vols. 

As  Giles  was  in  Congress  during  a  large  part  of 
his  life,  the  Annals  is  of  inestimable  value  for  this 
study. 

Benton,  Thomas  Hart  [editor]— Abridgment  of  the  Debates  of  Congress, 

from  1789  to  1856.     New  York,  1857-1861.     16  vols. 

Calendar    of    Virginia    state    papers    and    other    manuscripts    preserved 

...     at    Richmond,    1652-1869.      Richmond,    1815- 

1893.     11  vols. 

This  work  is  so  incomplete  as  to  diminish  very 
much  its  value. 

Cranch,  William  [reporter]— Reports  of  cases  argued  and  adjudged  in 
the  Supreme  Court  of  the  United  States.  1804-1817. 
9  vols. 

Journals  and  Documents  of  the  House  of  Delegates  of  Virginia,  1776-1830. 

From   1819   to    1866   such   executive   documents    as 

were  published  were  printed  as  an  appendix  to  the 

House    and    Senate    Journals. 

Proceedings  and  Debates  of  the  Virginia  State  Convention  of  1829.1830. 

Richmond,  1830. 

Resolutions  of  Virginia  and  Kentucky  penned  by  Madison  and  Jefferson, 
in  relation  to  the  Alien  and  Sedition  Laws,  and  the 
debates  and  proceedings  in  the  House  of  Delegates 


246  WILLIAM  BEANCH  GILES 

of  Virginia,  on  the  same,  December  1798.    Richmond, 
1832.    72,  183  p. 

Richardson,  J.  D.  [compiler] — Compilation  of  the  messages  and  papers 
of  the  Presidents  (House  Misc.  Docs.  53  Cong.,  2nd 
sess.,  no.  210).  Washington,  1896-1909.  10  vols. 

IV.     PERIODICALS.      (NEWSPAPERS,    MAGAZINES,    ANNUAL 
PUBLICATIONS) 

I  have  made  extensive  use  of  newspapers.  Giles 
was  a  subject  of  so  much  discussion  in  Virginia 
and  was  himself  so  copious  in  newspaper  contro 
versies  that  it  has  been  necessary  to  examine  the 
leading  Virginia  papers  page  by  page,  for  the  period 
of  his  activity.659 
The  American  Historical  Review.  N.  Y.,  1895 — 

Anderson,  F.  M. — Contemporary  Opinion  of  the  Kentucky  and  Vir 
ginia  Resolutions. — vol  V,  45,  225. 

Farrand,  Max— The  Judiciary  Act  of  1801.    vol.  V,  682. 
McLaughlin,   A.    C. — Social    Compact    and    Constitutional    Interpre 
tation.    Vol.  V,  467. 

Turner,  F.  J.— The  South  1820-1830.     vol.  XI,  559. 
Dodd,  W.  E.— Chief  Justice  Marshall  and  Virginia.    Vol  XII,  776. 
The  American  Historical  Association  Annual  Reports.    Washington,  1890 — 
McLaughlin,  A.   C.— Western  Posts   and  British  Debts.     1894,  413. 
Ogg,  F.  A.— Jay's  Treaty  and  the  Slavery  Interests  of  the  United 

States.     1901.     vol.  I,  275. 
Branch  Historical  Papers  of  Randolph-Macon  College.     1901-1912. 

1-111.     Contains    sketches    of    prominent    Virginians 
and    some    interesting    source    material.     The    June, 
1911,  number  contains  article  on  Giles  by  G.  M.  Betty. 
The  Daily  Compiler.    Richmond. 

The  Virginia  State  Library  has  numbers  from  1814 
to   1847. 
The  Examiner.    Richmond.    1798-1804. 

In  1804  the  name  was  changed  to  the  Richmond 
Enquirer.  It  was  anti-Federal,  promoting  the  elec 
tion  of  Jefferson. 

Th<e  Intelligencer  and  Petersburg  Commercial  Advertiser.  Petersburg. 
Semi-weekly.  Library  of  Congress  has  1800  to  1840. 

659  The  dates  of  the  lives  of  the  various  newspapers  are  sometimes  ap 
parently  impossible  to  find.  A  Virginia  State  Library  Bulletin  issued 
October,  1912,  gives  a  list  of  newspapers  in  the  Virginia  State  Library. 
Confederate  Museum,  and  Valentine  Museum.  The  work  has  been  carefully 
done  by  Mrs.  Kate  Pleasants  Minor  of  the  Virginia  State  Library.  The 
Check  list  of  American  newspapers  in  the  Library  of  Congress,  Washington, 
1901,  is  of  great  value, 


BIBLIOGRAPHY  247 

Johns  Hopkins  University  Studies  in  Historical  and  Political  Science. 
1883 — Contains  many  articles  on  Virginia  history. 

The  Massachusetts  Historical  Society  Proceedings.     Boston,  1791 — 

The  Massachusetts   Historical  Society   Collections.     Boston,    1879 — 

Both  the  Proceedings  and  the  Collections  contain 
interesting  Virginia  material. 

The  Nation.     New  York,  1865.— 

In  issue  of  July  18,  1912,  are  extracts  from  diary 
of  Moreau  de  St.  Mery  which  throw  some  light  on 
the  situation  in  1798. 

In  issue  Sept.  5,  1895,  is  a  discussion  by  Paul 
Leicester  Ford  of  the  authorship  of  the  Giles  reso 
lutions  of  1793. 

The  National  Intelligencer.    Washington,  1800-1870. 

The  New  England  Historical  and  Genealogical  Register.    Boston,  1847 — 

Niles  Weekly  Register.  Baltimore,  1811-1849.  Index  to  first  12  vols. 
Boston,  1818. 

The  Norfolk  Herald.    Semi-weekly  and  tri-weekly.    Established  1794. 

The  Norfolk  Press  and  Public  Advertiser. 

The  Recorder.     Richmond.    The  Virginia  State  Library  has   1802-1803. 

The  Richmond  Enquirer. 

This  paper  published  1804-1877  is  a  mine  of  infor 
mation  for  Virginia  History. 

The   Richmond   and  Manchester  Advertiser. 

A  continuation  of  the  Virginia  Gazette  and  Rich 
mond  and  Manchester  Advertiser. 

The  Southern  Literary  Messenger.    Richmond,  1834-1864.    36  vols. 

In  particular  vol.  17  which  contains  an  account  of 
the  Virginia  Constitutional  Convention  of  1829-1830. 
Also  volume  18  has  something  on  Giles. 

The    United   States   Telegraph  Extra,   1828.    Washington.     Weekly. 

This  was  a  Jackson  organ  edited  by  Duff  Green, 
Giles  contributed  to  it. 

The  Virginia  Argus.  Richmond.  Semi-weekly;  continuation  of  Richmond 
and  Manchester  Advertiser.  Library  of  Congress  has 
1797-1816. 

The  Virginia  Gazette  and  Richmond  and  Manchester  Advertiser.  Semi- 
weekly.  Established  1793. 

The  Virginia  Gazette  and  General  Advertiser.  Richmond.  Weekly  and 
semi-weekly.  Library  of  Congress  has  1790-1809. 

The  Virginia  Gazette  and  Weekly  Advertiser.  Richmond.  The  Vir 
ginia  State  Library  has  1787-1793. 

The  Virginia  Historical  Society  Collections.  New  Series.  Richmond. 
1882-1892,  11  vols.  Vols.  IX  and  X  contain  Grigsby's 
Convention  of  1788.  Much  valuable  biographical  ma 
terial  of  years  preceding  and  following  1788  is  given 
in  this  work. 


248  WILLIAM  BRANCH  GILES 

The   Virginia  Magazine  of  History  and  Biography.     Richmond.     1893 — 
William  and  Mary  Quarterly.     Richmond.     1892 — 

V.     BIOGRAPHIES  AND    GENEALOGIES 

Adams,  Henry — Life  of  Albert  Gallatin.  Phila.,  1879.  John  Randolph, 
(American  Statesmen  Series).  Boston,  1883-1898. 

Brock,  R.  A.— Virginia  and  Virginians,  1606-1888.  Richmond  and  Toledo, 
1888.  2  vols.  Contains  a  sketch  of  Giles. 

Brown,    Alexander — The    Cabells    and    their    Kin     .     .     .     Boston^    1895. 

Cabell,  James  Branch — Branch  of  Abingdon,  being  a  partial  account  of 
the  ancestry  of  Christopher  Branch  of  Arrowhattocks' 
and  Kingslands'  in  Henrico  County,  and  the  founder 
of  the  Branch  family  in  Virginia.  Richmond,  1911. 
Branchiana — Being  a  partial  account  of  the  Branch 
family  in  Virginia  .  .  .  Richmond,  1907. 

Dodd,  W.  E—  The  Life  of  Nathaniel  Macon.     Raleigh,  1903. 

Gay,  8.  H. — James  Madison.  (American  Statesmen  Series).  Boston,  1884- 
1898. 

Gordon,  A.    C—  Life    of   William    Fitzhugh    Gordon,   Washington,    1909. 

Grigsby,  Hugh  Blair — Discourse  on  the  life  and  character  of  the  Hon. 
Littleton  Waller  Tazewell.  Delivered  .  .  .  before 
the  bar  of  Norfolk,  Virginia,  and  the  citizens,  gener 
ally,  on  the  29th  of  June,  1860  .  .  .  Norfolk,  1860. 

Hamilton,  J.  C. — History  of  the  republic  of  the  United  States  of  Ameri 
ca,  as  traced  in  the  writings  of  Alexander  Hamilton 
and  his  contemporaries.  N.  Y.,  1857-1864.  7  vols. 

Hayden,   H.   E. — Virginia   Genealogies     .     .     .     Wilkes-Barre,    1891. 

Henry,  William  Wirt — Patrick  Henry,  Life,  Correspondence  and  Speeches. 
New  York,  1891.  3  vols. 

Probably   the   best   history   of  Virginia   1736-1799; 
anti-Jeffersonian. 

Hunt,   Gaillard — Life   of  James   Madison.     New  York,  1902. 

Lodge,  Henry  Cabot —  George  Washington  (American  Statesmen  Series). 
Boston,  1889  and  1898. 

Alexander  Hamilton  (American  Statesmen  Series). 
Boston,   1882  and   1898. 

Magruder,  A  B  — John  Marshall  (American  Statesmen  Series).  Boston, 
1885  and  1898. 

Marshall,  John— Life  of  George  Washington.  Phila.,  1804-1807.  5  vols. 
Also  an  abridged  ed.  1832.  2  vols. 

Morse,  John  T.,  Jr. — Thomas  Jefferson  (American  Statesmen  Series). 
Boston,  1883  and  1898. 

Quincy,  Edmund — Life  of  Josiah  Quincy.     Boston,  1868. 

Randall,  Henry  Stephens— Life  of  Thomas  Jefferson.  New  York,  1871. 
3  vols. 

Randolph,  Sarah — The  Domestic  life  of  Thomas  Jefferson  compiled  from 
family  letters  and  reminiscences.  N.  Y.,  1871. 


BIBLIOGRAPHY  249 

Rives,  W.  C. — Life  and  Times  of  James  Madison.  3  Vols.  This  work 
comes  down  only  to  1797. 

Smith,  Margaret  V.— Virginia  1492-1892.  A  brief  record  of  the  discovery 
of  the  continent  of  North  America  with  a  history  of 
the  executives  of  the  colony  and  commonwealth  of  Vir 
ginia.  Washington,  1893. 

Story,  W.  W.— Life  and  Letters  of  Joseph  Story.    Boston,  1857.    2  vols. 

Tucker,  George — The  Life  of  Thomas  Jefferson.  Philadelphia,  1837. 
2  vols. 

Tyler,  Lyon  G. — Letters  and  Times  of  the  Tylers.  Richmond  and  Wil- 
liamsburg,  1884-1896.  3  vols. 

VI.     WORKS  ON  VIRGINIA  HISTORY 

Ambler,   Charles  H. — Sectionalism  in  Virginia.     Chicago,   1910.     An  ex 
cellent  study— the  best  history  of  Virginia  1776-1861. 
Howe,  Henry — Historical  Collections  of  Virginia.    Charleston,  S.  C.,  1852. 

Grisby,  Hugh  Blair — The  Virginia  Convention  of  1776.  A  discourse  de 
livered  before  the  Virginia  Alpha  of  the  Phi  Beta 
Kappa  Society  in  the  chapel  of  William  and  Mary  Col 
lege  .  .  .  July  3,  1853.  Richmond,  1855. 

The  History  of  the  Virginia  federal  convention  of 
1788,  with  some  account  of  the  eminent  Virginians  of 
that  era  who  were  members  of  that  body  .  .  . 
edited  by  R.  A.  Brock  and  published  in  the  Virginia 
Historical  Society  Collections  (new  series)  IX-X. 
Richmond,  1890-1891. 

The  Virginia  Convention  of  1829-30.  A  discourse 
delivered  before  the  Virginia  Historical  Society  .  .  . 
Richmond,  December  15,  1853.  Published  in 
Virginia  Historical  Reporter  vol.  I.  Richmond,  1854. 

Hoioison.  R.  R. — A  history  of  Virginia  from  its  discovery  and  settlement 
by  Europeans  to  the  present  times.  Richmond,  1848. 
2  vols. 

So  much  material  has  been  discovered  since  Mr. 
Howison  and  the  earlier  historians  of  Virginia  wrote 
that  their  work  is  all  but  obsolete. 

Martin,  Joseph — A  new  and  compendious  gazeteer  of  Virginia  and  the 
District  of  Columbia.  Charlottes ville,  1835. 

Meade,  Bishop  [William] — Old  churches,  ministers  and  families  of  Vir 
ginia.  Phila.,  1857.  2  vols. 

Semple,  Robert  B. — A  History  of  the  Rise  and  Progress  of  the  Baptists  in 
Virginia.  Revised  and  extended  by  G.  W.  Beale. 
Richmond,  1894. 

Warfield,  E.  D. — The  Kentucky  Resolutions  of  1798.  An  historical  study. 
N.  Y.,  1894.  2nd  edition. 


250  WILLIAM  BRANCH  GILES 

VII.    HISTORIES  OF  THE  UNITED  STATES 

Adams,  Henry — History  of  the  United  States  of  America  during  the  ad 
ministrations  of  Jefferson  and  Madison.  N.  Y.,  1889- 
1891.  9  vols. 

Mr.  Adams's  work  is,  of  course,  the  authority  on  the 
Jeffersonian  period,  but  his  work  is  not  final.  From 
lack  of  sympathy  with  southern  men,  he  sometimes 
fails  to  understand  them. 

Benton,  Thomas  Hart — Thirty  Years  View,  or  a  History  of  the  workings 

of  the  American  government  for  thirty  years,  from 

1820  to  1850.    N.  Y.,  1854-1856.   2  vols.    Vol.  I  has  an 

appreciation  of  Giles. 

Dewey,  D.  R. — Financial  history  of  the  United  States  (American  citizen's 

series)  N.  Y.,  1903.  3rd  ed.  1907. 

Hart,  A.  B.  [editor]— The  American  Nation:  a  History.  N.  Y.,  1904-1908. 
26  vols.,  one  being  index  volume. 

The  following  volumes  in  this  series  are  valuable 
for  our  period: 

Bassett,  J.  S.— Federalist  System. 
Channing,  Edward — The  Jeffersonian  System. 
Babcock,  C.   B.— Rise  of  American  Nationality. 
Turner,  F.  J.— Rise  of  the  New  West. 
Hildreth,  Richard—  History  of  the  United   States— N.  Y.,  1849-1856.     6 

vols.     Revised  edition  1880-1882. 

McMaster,  J.  B.— History  of  the  People  of  the  United  States  from  the 
Revolution  to  the  Civil  War.     N.  Y.,   1883-1910.     7 
vols.   (to  1850). 
Schouler,  James — History  of  the  United  States  under  the  constitution. 

Revised  ed.  N.  Y.   [copyright]   1894-1899.     6  vols. 

The  South  in  the  Building  of  the  Nation:  A  History  of  the  southern  states 
designed  to  record  the  south's  part  in  the  making  of 
the  American  Nation;  to  portray  the  character  and 
genius,  to  chronicle  the  achievements  and  prowess 
and  to  illustrate  the  life  and  traditions  of  the 
southern  people.  Published  by  the  Southern  Histor 
ical  Publication  Society.  Richmond,  [1909-1910]. 

The  most  valuable  volumes  are  V  and  VI  on  the 
economic  history  of  the  south  1607-1909.  The  other 
volumes  add  little  of  importance  to  our  resources  on 
southern  history. 

VIII.    MISCELLANEOUS 

Alexander,  Samuel  Dames — Princeton  during  the  eighteenth  century. 
N.  Y.,  1872. 

Asbury,  Francis — Journal  of  Rev.  Francis  Asbury,  Bishop  of  the  Metho 
dist  Episcopal  Church.  N.  Y.,  1852.  3  vols. 

Callender,  J.  T.— The  History  of  the  United  States  for  1796.  Philadelphia, 
1797. 


BIBLIOGRAPHY  251 

[Cobbett,  William]—  Peter  Porcupine— A  little  plain  English  addressed  to 
the  people  of  the  United  States  on  the  treaty.  Phil 
adelphia,  1795. 

Grigsby,  Hugh  Blair — Discourse  on  the  lives  and  characters  of  the  early 
presidents  and  trustees  of  Hampden-Sidney  College. 
Delivered  at  the  centenary  of  the  founding  of  the  col 
lege,  on  the  14th  of  June,  1876.  Richmond,  1913. 

Oriswold,  R.  W. — The  Republican  court  or  American  Society  in  the  days 
of  Washington.  N.  Y.,  1856. 

Latrobe,  Benjamin  Henry — The  Journal  of  Latrobe  .  .  .  1796-1820. 
N.  Y.,  1905. 

Maury,  Ann — Memories  of  a  Huguenot  Family.  Translated  and  com 
piled  from  the  original  autobiography  of  the  Rev. 
James  Fontaine  .  .  .  N.  Y.,  1853. 

Saint-Mery,  Moreau  de — Voyage  aux  ^tats — Unis  de  L'Am6rigue,  1793- 
1798.  Edited  with  an  introduction  and  notes  by 
Stewart  L.  Mims.  New  Haven,  1913.  Has  interest 
ing  chapters  on  Norfolk  and  Portsmouth,  and  items 
of  interest  about  Congress  and  public  men. 

Schoepf,  J.  D. — Travels  in  the  Confederation,  from  the  German  of  Johann 
David  Schoepp  [1783-1784].  Translated  and  edited 
by  A.  J.  Morrison  .  .  .  Phila.,  1911.  2  vols. 

Trumbull,  John — Autobiography,  reminiscenes,  and  letters  of  John  Trum- 
bull  from  1806  to  1841.  N.  Y.  and  New  Haven,  1841. 
Trumbull  was  an  enemy  of  Giles  and  gives  an 
account  of  how  that  enmity  began. 

Virginia  slavery  debate  1832— A  bound  volume  of  various  speeches, 
separately  printed,  delivered  in  the  General  Assembly 
1832,  in  the  Virginia  State  Library. 


APPENDIX 

RETROSPECTS    No.  XV 

Compilations — Reviews — and  Reflections 
"UNION" 

Division — disastrous  to  the  whole  U.  S.  But  not  equally 
disastrous  to  each  of  the  several  States. 

It  will  appear  from  an  examination  of  the  last  Number,  that 
both  the  author  of  "Union"  and  the  writer,  concur  in  opinion; 
that  the  Union  of  these  states  is  actually  put  in  jeopardy,  by 
the  various  intermeddlings  and  usurpations  of  the  General 
Government;  but  particularly  by  the  Tariff  and  Internal  Im 
provement  Acts.  Both,  also,  concur  in  opinion,  that  such  dis 
union  would,  probably,  be  extremely  disastrous  to  the  whole 
United  States,  and  ought  to  be  deprecated  by  every  real  patriot 
in  the  nation ;  but  they  differ  in  this  material  respect.  The 
writer  of  "Union,"  applies  the  disastrous  consequences  of  dis 
union,  in  an  equal  degree,  to  every  individual  state — whereas, 
the  writer  thinks,  the  disastrous  consequences  would  be  much 
greater  to  some  States,  than  to  others ;  nor  would  the  writer,  so 
far  concur  with  the  author  of  "Union,"  as  to  admit,  that  dis 
union  would  be  the  greatest  possible  disaster,  that  could  befall 
the  U.  S.,  should  the  author  entertain  such  opinion. 

The  writer  thinks  a  consolidated  despotism,  would  be  an 
infinitely  greater  disaster  than  disunion;  of  course,  he  thinks, 
the  Tariff  Acts,  and  Internal  Improvement  permanently  fixed 
upon  this  Union,  as  an  infinitely  greater  disaster — as  they 
must  necessarily  eventuate  in  the  very  worst  of  consolidated 
despotisms;  provided  the  Union  should  continue  under  their 
most  baleful  influence.  The  inevitable  effects  of  such  a  gov 
ernment,  would  be  the  utter  annihilation  of  human  liberty  and 
with  it,  all  human  rights,  prosperity  and  happiness.  The 
writer  has  often  been  astonished  to  observe,  how  little  the  real 
characteristics  of  the  Tariff  and  Internal  Improvement  Acts, 
have  been  considered  and  understood.  It  seems  as  if  the  public 
mind  cannot  be  brought  to  bear  upon  their  vicious,  militant 


APPENDIX  253 

elements,  and  consequent  immoral  tendencies.  It  is  not  in 
frequent,  to  hear  the  most  zealous  devotees  to  these  measures, 
express  the  greatest  horror  and  alarm,  at  consolidation,  and 
consequent  despotism;  whereas,  a  very  little  reflection,  ought 
to  convince  every  man  of  sound  mind,  that  they  are  precisely 
the  same  thing,  clothed  in  different  garbs,  and  called  by  different 
names. 

This  essay,  published  in  the  Richmond  Enquirer,  Oct.  2,  1829,  is  reprinted 
here  because  it  illustrates  the  general  character  of  Giles's  voluminous 
newspaper  writing  and  also  because  the  views  in  the  article  are  in  them 
selves  decidedly  interesting.  They  suggest  the  intense  hostility  of  the 
South  to  the  Protective  Tariff,  the  willingness  of  some  in  1829  to  view 
disunion  as  a  lesser  evil  than  the  "usurpations"  of  the  National  Govern 
ment,  and  their  opinion  as  to  the  peculiar  strength  of  the  South  in  case 
of  disunion  and  war. 

The  only  change  which  I  have  made  in  the  paper  as  originally  published 
is  to  paragraph  it.  Mr.  Giles  or  Editor  Thomas  Ritchie  didn't  bother 
much  about  such  small  matters  as  paragraphing. 

What  constitutes  the  difference  between  a  federal  and  a  con 
solidated  government?  It  consists  simply  in  this:  A  federal 
government  confines  its  jurisdiction  strictly  to  general  and  ex 
ternal  objects.  A  consolidated  government,  includes  within  its 
jurisdiction,  not  only  general  and  external  objects,  but  all 
objects  of  internal  concerns.  Of  which  description  of  objects, 
are  the  Tariff  and  Internal  Improvement  Acts? — especially 
when  the  Tariff  Acts  assume  the  character  of  protecting,  in 
ternal  industry,  and  directing  the  internal  occupations  of  in 
dividuals?  Most  certainly,  these  are  objects  of  internal  juris 
diction,  and  the  government  which  exercises  jurisdiction  over 
them,  as  well  as  over  all  general  and  external  objects,  must  be  a 
consolidated  government,  in  all  its  essential,  practical  charac 
teristics,  whatever  be  the  nomenclature  affixed  to  it.  The 
writer  believes  there  exists  but  one  opinion,  as  to  the  ultimate 
effects  of  a  consolidated  government  in  the  U.  S. — that  it  must 
produce  despotism,  and  destroy  freedom.  Under  this  view  of 
the  subject,  it  is  evident,  that  the  General  Government,  as  now 
administered,  in  exercising  jurisdiction  over  internal,  as  well 
as  general  and  external  concerns,  is  a  consolidated  govern 
ment — is,  in  fact,  already  a  despotism ;  and  time  is  only  wanted, 
to  satisfy  everyone,  when  it  is  too  late,  of  its  despotic  character. 


WILLIAM  BRANCH  GILES 

Directing  and  controlling  the  property,  capabilities  and  talents 
of  individuals,  instead  of  leaving  them  to  the  control  of  their 
owners,  is  the  very  essence  of  despotism;  and  this  is  the  iden 
tical  ground  assumed  by  Messrs.  Adams,  Clay,  and  Rush,  in 
justification  of  the  Tariff  Acts. 

Believing,  then,  that  the  Union  is  put  in  hazard,  by  the 
various  and  complicated  usurpations  already  in  practice,  by 
the  General  Government,  the  writer  thinks,  the  time  is  come, 
when  it  is  the  duty  of  every  lover  of  "Union,"  to  examine  well, 
and  estimate  the  consequences  of  disunion,  with  all  its  hazards, 
and  a  consolidated  despotism,  with  all  its  inevitable,  deplorable 
certainties.  If  the  usurpations  of  the  General  Government  be 
continued,  to  this  issue  we  must  come  at  last ;  and  when  we  do, 
the  writer  most  earnestly  hopes  and  trusts,  with  Mr.  Jefferson, 
that  there  can  be  neither  doubt  nor  hesitation.  The  choice  must 
be,  between  disunion  with  liberty — and  consolidated  despotism 
with  slavery.  As  it  regards  the  relations  of  the  U.  S.  in  their 
present  condition  with  foreign  nations,  it  is  self-evident,  that  it 
must  be  the  same  throughout  the  whole — being,  in  that  respect, 
one  government;  and  of  course,  all  parts  must  participate 
equally  in  the  same  foreign  relations — but  very  different  will 
be  these  relations  with  the  different  States,  in  case  of  disunion. 
To  present  this  important  subject  in  a  clear  point  of  view,  it 
will  be  necessary  to  examine  the  natural  relations  of  different 
sections  of  the  U.  S.  toward  each  other;  and  with  the  foreign, 
commercial  nations,  growing  out  of  their  different  productions 
and  occupations. 

Let,  then,  the  six  New  England  states,  including  Vermont, 
be  presumed  to  constitute  one  confederacy,  in  case  of  disunion — 
what,  then,  would  be  the  relations  of  those  confederated 
States,  separated  from  all  the  rest,  with  the  commercial  nations 
of  Europe? — particularly  with  Great  Britain,  whose  immediate 
relations  with  these  States,  whether  united  or  disunited,  must 
be  more  important,  than  the  commercial  relations  with  the 
other  European  nations,  arising  from  her  great  ascendancy 
over  all  other  nations,  both  in  regard  to  her  naval  power,  and 
her  commercial  capital?  This  section  of  the  U.  S.,  would 


APPENDIX  255 

present  the  relation  of  rivalship,  with  all  commercial  foreign 
nations,  particularly  with  Great  Britain,  with  scarcely  one 
single  natural  tie  of  mutual  accommodation.  They  are  strictly 
rivals  in  almost  all  their  relations — in  Commerce — in  Naviga 
tion — in  Fishing — and  in  Manufactories, — whilst  the  only  sub 
ject  of  commercial  accommodation,  would  consist  in  their 
supplies  of  live  stock,  and  some  other  notions  for  the  West 
Indian  market.  It  is  presumed,  that  the  whole  amount  of  agri 
cultural  products  exported  from  those  States,  would  not  amount 
to  $2,000,000,  out  of  an  export  from  the  whole  United  States, 
exceeding  $5,000,000.  Hence,  it  is  evident,  that  these  States, 
in  their  natural  condition  are  necessarily  and  essentially 
rivals;  and  can  never,  by  any  artificial  means,  which  would 
not  be  ruinous  to  both  parties,  become  customers  of  the  com 
mercial  nations  of  Europe.  Rivalship  is  a  state  of  hostility, 
not  of  friendship ;  hence,  little  or  no  advantageous  connection, 
could  take  place  between  those  States,  and  any  one  of  the 
commercial  nations  of  Europe ;  and,  so  far,  they  might  be  said 
to  be  independent  of  those  nations — that  this  boasted,  positive 
independence,  would  add  very  little  to  the  wealth  and  prosperity 
of  those  positively  independent  States. 

New  York  and  New  Jersey  might  form  another  confederacy, 
or  it  might  include  Delaware,  Pennsylvania  and  Maryland.  In 
either  case,  the  actual  relationship  between  those  States,  and 
the  commercial  States  of  Europe,  would  be  nearly  the  same. 
New  York  is,  at  present,  an  Empire  in  herself — but  much  of  her 
greatness  is  artificial,  not  intrinsic.  The  great  commercial  city 
of  New  York,  and  the  twenty-five  millions  of  bank  capital  de 
pend  upon  contingencies,  not  upon  intrinsic,  paramount  causes, 
and  her  intrinsic  resources,  or  her  native  productions  for 
exportation,  will  be  found  not  to  be  much  greater,  than  those 
of  New  England.  The  only  additon  to  them,  of  importance, 
consists  of  breadstuffs;  and  those  are  so  highly  dutied  in 
Great  Britain,  as  to  amount,  in  ordinary  times,  to  a  prohibi 
tion,  and  they  are  not  wanted,  in  the  other  commercial  nations 
of  Europe.  The  same  rivalship  will  apply  to  the  whole  of  the 
other  States,  thrown  into  this  confederacy.  The  whole  of  these 


256  WILLIAM  BRANCH  GILES 

States  are  the  rivals,  and  cannot  be  made  the  customers  of 
the  commercial  States  of  Europe — and  hence,  in  case  of 
forming  this  confederacy  out  of  the  separation  of  the  present 
United  States,  these  States  must,  in  the  fixed,  unalterable  na 
ture  of  things  become  rivals  and  not  customers  of  the  commer 
cial  States  of  Europe;  and  out  of  this  rivalship  must,  neces 
sarily,  come  hositility,  not  friendship.  The  cities  of  New  York 
and  Philadelphia,  particularly  New  York,  present  the  most 
powerful  and  alarming  rivals  to  London  and  Liverpool  in  the 
whole  world;  and  so  far  from  Great  Britain  cherishing  any 
disposition  to  foster  and  increase  the  wealth  and  prosperity  of 
either  of  these  cities,  particularly  New  York,  she  would  be  de 
lighted  in  being  afforded  an  opportunity  of  prostrating  her 
most  formidable  rivals,  and  even  laying  the  City  of  New  York 
in  ashes.  New  York,  therefore,  would  have  more  to  dread,  in 
case  of  disunion,  than  any  state  in  the  Union ;  especially  when, 
independent  of  the  effect  of  stripping  her  of  all  her  artificial 
resources,  arising  from  her  present  connection  with  the 
Southern  States,  and  casting  her  upon  her  own  means,  she 
would  become  placed  in  a  hostile  attitude  with  Great  Britain — 
with  her  great  city  exposed  to  British  power  on  the  water, 
and,  with  her  Northeastern  frontiers  open  to  attacks  from 
Great  Britain,  through  Canada — now  containing  a  population 
exceeding  half  a  million  of  souls,  and  rapidly  increasing  both 
in  strength  and  population — her  fortifications  strengthened 
every  day.  New  York,  therefore,  without  the  possibility  of 
gaining  anything,  would  be  placed  in  greater  jeopardy,  by 
disunion,  than  any  other  state  in  the  Union.  The  whole  native 
productions,  from  this  supposed  confederacy  for  exportation, 
would  fall  short  of  8,000,000,  whilst  their  points  of  rivalship 
with  the  commercial  nations  of  Europe,  would  be  little  less  than 
those  of  the  New  England  states.  These  states,  then,  in  the 
unalterable  nature  of  things,  in  the  event  of  disunion,  must 
become  the  rivals,  not  the  customers,  of  all  other  commercial 
nations:  But  it  is  difficult  to  say  whether  more  relatively 
dependent  upon,  or  independent  of,  them;  but  certainly  with 
out  any  increase  of  wealth  and  prosperity  arising  from  the 
direct  and  extensive  rivalship. 


APPENDIX  257 

The  Western  States,  Kentucky,  Ohio,  Indiana  and  Illinois, 
might  form  a  separate  confederacy.  From  their  remote  posi 
tion,  they  would  have  very  little  connection  with  the  commer 
cial  nations  of  Europe;  but  to  its  extent,  it  would  be  rather 
that  of  mutual  accommodation  than  rivalship ;  and  so  far  their 
relation  would  be  friendly  rather  than  hostile.  The  strange 
notion  of  the  Western  States  rivaling  the  manufacturing 
nations  of  Europe,  particularly  Great  Britain,  is  most  absurd 
and  preposterous,  and  would  be  ridiculous  in  the  extreme,  if 
it  had  not  already  been  used  to  bring  about  the  tariff,  with 
all  its  horrible  effects.  The  notion  of  rivaling  a  nation  in 
manufacturing,  in  which  there  is  a  perfect  division  of  labor, 
and  in  which  the  operatives  are  content  to  labor  all  day,  and  all 
night  too,  if  necessary ;  and,  whether  content  or  not,  are  com 
pelled  to  perform  this  labor  without  sufficient  bread  or  covering, 
by  another  nation,  in  which  the  operatives  are  not  only  per 
fectly  free  from  all  restraints — demand  high  wages,  and  require 
good  clothing,  and  an  overabundance  of  food — and,  moreover, 
the  real  governors  of  the  nation  are  extravagant,  nonsensical 
and  preposterous.  Whenever  the  operatives  are  permitted  to 
vote  under  the  blessed  influence  of  general  suffrage,  they,  of 
course,  become  the  governors  of  the  nation,  and  thus  they  be 
come  absolutely  incapacitated  for  successfully  rivaling  oper 
atives  not  blessed  with  the  same  great  privilege  of  the  elective 
franchise.  The  time  necessarily  required  to  qualify  an  opera 
tive  for  performing  this  great  governmental  duty,  by  meetings 
at  barbecues,  listening  to  electioneering  orations,  and  enlighten 
ing  their  own  minds  with  due  potations  of  whiskey  for  that  pur 
pose,  would  alone  render  the  voters  the  most  unsuccessful  rivals 
of  operatives,  who  are  relieved  from  all  governmental  cares  and 
duties,  without  sufficient  bread  or  covering,  and  who  are  willing 
to  labor  all  day  and  night — and,  in  the  course  of  that  labor, 
without  permitting  their  minds  to  wander  into  governmental 
cogitations,  but  to  keep  them  perpetually  confined  to  one  single 
conception,  and  their  bodies  to  one  single  physical  action,  for 
the  perfection  of  their  mechanical  art,  be  it  what  it  may. 
Mr.  Clay's  electioneering,  barbecue  orations  alone,  would 


258  WILLIAM  BRANCH  GILES 

call  for  more  time  from  the  operative  voters,  under  the 
general  suffrage  provisions,  than  would  throw  them  far  in 
the  background  in  their  rivalship  with  the  British  operatives. 
The  writer  deems  the  business  of  manufacturing  for  exportation 
in  rivalship  with  European  manufactories  in  foreign  markets, 
absolutely  incompatible  with  the  right  of  general  suffrage, 
wherever  that  right  may  be  executed — whether  in  Massa 
chusetts,  Kentucky,  or  elsewhere :  and  this  consideration  alone, 
ought  to  have  determined  the  tariff-schemers  from  the  wild 
attempt  to  form  a  competition  with  British  manufactories  in 
foreign  markets:  for,  surely,  nothing  can  be  more  unwise,  as 
well  as  unjust,  than  buying  a  foreign  market  by  bounties, 
drawn  from  other  occupations.  From  all  these  considerations, 
the  writer  thinks,  that  the  Western  states,  composing  this  sup 
posed  confederacy,  having  but  little  connection,  and  no  rival- 
ship  with  foreign  nations,  would  have  very  little  dependence 
upon  them,  and  may  be  considered  quite  independent  of  them, 
but  not  a  whit  the  better,  nor  the  wiser,  nor  the  wealthier,  nor 
the  happier,  from  the  absence  of  all  connection  with  the  com 
mercial  nations  of  Europe. 

Very  far  different  would  be  the  relations  between  the  States 
composing  the  Southern  supposed  confederacy,  consisting  of 
Tennessee,  Alabama,  Mississippi,  Missouri,  Louisiana,  Florida, 
Georgia,  South  and  North  Carolinas  and  Virginia;  and  the 
commercial  states  of  Europe.  These  states  present  no  points 
of  rivalship  whatever  with  the  commercial  states  of  Europe ;  but 
are  the  best  customers  they  have  in  the  world — whilst  they  have 
no  taste  for  manufacturing  except  household  manufactures, 
and  but  little  disposition  for  commerce;  their  native  produc 
tions  consist  precisely  of  the  materials,  in  most  demand,  in  other 
commercial  countries — cotton,  breadstuff,  rice  and  tobacco. 
These  states,  therefore,  are  the  best  customers  of  the  com 
mercial  nations  of  Europe,  without  any  one  material  point  of 
rivalship;  of  course,  all  their  relations  are  friendly,  none 
hostile;  and  whilst  the  native  productions  of  these  states  are 
much  wanted  by  all  the  commercial  and  manufacturing  nations 


APPENDIX  259 

of  Europe,  their  manufactured  goods  are  much  wanted  in 
those  states ;  hence  the  relations  between  them  consist  in  mutual 
accommodations  and  mutual  interests. 

The  writer  thinks  this  relationship  of  mutual  accommodation 
and  interest,  might  produce  a  mutual  dependence  between 
these  States  and  the  commercial  states  of  Europe,  particu 
larly  Great  Britain;  but  this  mutual  dependence,  would 
necessarily  be  attended  with  a  mutual,  relative  independence, 
which  is  the  most  desirable  relation  that  can  exist  between 
foreign  nations.  Out  of  $50,000,000  exports  from  the  whole 
United  States  in  1828,  cotton  alone  produced  nearly 
$30,000,000.  Add  then,  the  productions  of  breadstuffs,  rice 
and  tobacco  and  at  least  $40,000,000  out  of  $50,000,000  will 
be  found  to  be  produced  by  the  exports  from  these  states  alone ; 
and  this  great  relative  amount  would  have  been,  and  now  would 
be,  much  enhanced,  if  British  manufactured  goods  were  freely 
taken  as  exchange  for  consumption  here.  This  measure  would 
be  as  much  to  the  true  interest  of  these  states,  as  of  Great 
Britain.  This  statement  is  made  in  general  terms;  but  the 
proportions  of  the  products  of  the  exports,  will  be  found  suffi 
cient  for  coming  to  the  great  general  results.  Those  who 
choose  to  make  more  minute  calculations,  may  do  so,  by  turning 
to  the  treasury  reports  of  1828 — from  which  this  outline  view 
in  round  numbers  is  taken.  Several  most  instructive  lessons 
may  be  learned  from  these  facts. 

First.  It  will  most  clearly  appear,  that  in  the  event  of  dis 
union,  these  states  would  be  placed  in  the  most  friendly  rela 
tions  with  the  commercial  nations  of  Europe,  grounded  upon 
the  best  possible  basis — that  of  mutual  accommodation  and 
interest,  whilst  the  Northern  and  Eastern  sections  of  the  Union, 
would  be  placed  in  a  state  of  unalterable  rivalship,  and  of 
course,  of  hostility;  and,  therefore,  in  the  event  of  disunion, 
that  the  southern  states  would  have  nothing  to  fear  from 
the  hostile  spirit  of  Europe,  whilst  the  Northern  and  Eastern 
section  of  the  Union,  would  have  to  encounter  all  the  hostilities 
arising  from  jealous  rivalships,  fixed  in  the  nature  of  things, 
and,  therefore,  unalterable  by  artificial  expedients. 


260  WILLIAM  BRANCH  GILES 

Another  lesson  equally  instructive  will  be  found  in  the  rela 
tions  which  must  necessarily  arise  between  these  different  sec 
tions  of  the  present  union,  in  the  event  of  separation.  It  is 
admitted  as  an  universal  truth  amongst  commercial  nations, 
that  the  annual  imports  of  every  nation  will  always  be  nearly 
equal  to  its  exports.  Hence,  the  southern  states  must  import 
into  the  United  States,  or,  in  other  words,  the  imports  into 
the  United  States  grounded  upon  the  exports  from  these  states, 
must  be  equal  to  $40,000,000,  whilst  the  imports  grounded 
upon  the  exports  from  all  the  rest  of  the  United  States  do  not 
much  exceed  $50,000,000 ;  it  must,  therefore,  irresistibly  follow, 
that  during  the  existing  union,  the  Southern  States  contribute 
four-fifths  of  the  whole  revenue,  besides  the  contribution  they 
pay  to  the  manufactories  under  the  tariff  acts.  The  amount 
then  paid  is  enormous ;  but  the  writer  has  no  means  at  this 
time  to  make  an  accurate  estimation  thereof — whilst  out  of 
this  enormous  amount  of  contributions,  a  very  small  portion 
thereof  is  returned  to  the  contributing  states.  In  the  event  of 
disunion,  the  Northern  and  Eastern  states  would  be  stripped  of 
all  participation  in  these  contributions,  and  left  to  their  own 
resources,  which  they  will  find  meagre  enough,  whenever  the 
trial  shall  be  made;  and  hence  it  is  rendered  evident,  that  dis 
union  would  not  be  found  equally  disastrous  to  every  state  in  the 
Union.  In  that  event,  the  southern  states  would  be  left  to  the 
enjoyment  of  all  the  good  things  their  God  has  given  them,  and 
to  which,  they  have  superadded  their  own  labor;  the  proceeds 
of  which  are  now  transferred  to  the  northern  and  eastern  states 
for  their  enjoyment.  This  singular  and  unjust  effort  is  pro 
duced  by  the  tariff  and  other  artificial,  legislative  contrivances. 
Whenever  the  amount  contributed  through  these  means  shall 
become  perfectly  ascertained,  and  their  unequal  distributions 
known,  then  either  the  tariff  must  be  put  down  to  a  simple 
revenue  system,  or  this  union  must  be  dissolved.  No  people, 
possessing  common  sense  enough  to  understand  the  enormous 
amount  obtained  from  them,  through  the  tariff  and  other  artifi 
cial  expedients,  and  common  courage  enough  to  defend  their 
own  rights,  will  ever  long  submit  to  such  an  unnatural  and 
unprincipled  state  of  things. 


APPENDIX  261 

The  writer  is  well  aware,  that  the  southern  people  have  been 
often  threatened  with  the  superior  physical  force  of  the  other 
parts  of  the  United  States.  Mr.  Clay  most  significantly  re 
minds  the  Southerns,  that  the  disproportion  of  physical  force 
is  as  8,000,000  to  2,000,000  whilst  the  productive  means  of  the 
Southerns  are  as  4  to  1  in  their  favor.  This  may  be  true  in 
regard  to  physical  force  as  a  result  from  the  census  of  the 
whole  people  of  the  United  States ;  but  it  is  not  true,  in  relation 
to  the  object  for  which  the  threat  was  made.  That  is  in  plain 
English,  for  coercing  the  Southerns  into  a  subjection  to  the 
tariff  acts ;  to  the  forcible  plunder  of  the  southern  people.  In 
a  deplorable,  wicked  purpose  of  the  kind,  the  people  of  the 
United  States  would  not  be  the  only  people  consulted  on  that 
occasion.  No  coercive  expedient  could  be  resorted  to  by  the 
people  of  one  part  of  the  United  States  against  another  without 
calling  into  action  the  people  of  Europe — and  on  which  side 
would  they  be  found?  Surely,  on  the  side  of  their  interest.  On 
which  side  is  that?  On  the  side  of  their  rivals? — or  tne  side  of 
their  customers?  And  who  would  have  the  money  to  pay  them? 
The  section  which  exports  $40,000,000  or  that  which  exports 
$10,000,000?  The  author  of  "Union"  most  justly  says :  "Once 
divided,  we  should  form  stronger  bonds  of  union  with  foreign 
nations,  than  with  one  another."  Most  certainly  we  should; 
and  who  possesses  the  means  of  uniting  to  advantage  in  those 
stronger  bonds?  Certainly  the  southern  sections;  not  only 
through  commercial  means,  but  money  means — 40,000,000  to 
10,000,000  money,  is  truly  said  to  be  the  sinew  of  war  itself. 
Money  is  power — and  can  easily  be  converted  into  physical 
power.  The  southern  people,  therefore,  have  no  cause  to  be 
intimidated  by  these  threats.  In  case  of  disunion  the  northern 
and  eastern  people  would  become  much  more  harmless,  when 
kept  to  themselves,  than  they  are  with  union,  enjoying  all  the 
aids  they  now  get  from  their  connection  with  the  southern 
people.  What  would  become  of  the  northern  and  eastern 
people,  if  cut  off  from  all  commercial  relations  with  the  southern 
people?  What  would  become  of  their  navigation?  What  of 


262  WILLIAM  BRANCH  GILES 

their  manufacturing  industry,  so  far  as  cotton  is  employed  as 
an  essential  fabric? — and  so  long  as  their  manufactured  goods 
should  be  excluded  from  the  southern  market? 

Notwithstanding  the  southern  people  have  so  little  to  fear, 
and  so  much  to  gain  from  disunion,  comparatively  with  the 
northern  and  eastern  people,  the  writer  would  most  sincerely 
deprecate  such  an  event ;  but  he  has  no  hesitation  in  saying,  he 
would  infinitely  prefer  disunion,  with  all  its  hazards,  to  the 
Tariff  Acts;  which,  he  sincerely  believes,  imposes  upon  him  an 
unprincipled,  degrading  tribute.  He  would  prefer  any 
calamity,  to  the  condition  of  a  tributary  slave.  Turning  and 
twisting  the  Tariff  Acts  in  every  possible  way  to  avoid  it,  they 
must  be  brought  to  it  at  last ;  and  whenever  their  real  effects 
shall  come  to  be  universally  understood,  is  it  possible  that  free 
men  should  tolerate  them? 

There  are  other  most  important  and  instructive  views,  which 
may  be  hereafter  taken  of  this  deeply  interesting  subject, — 
particularly  as  to  the  grounds  upon  which  union  ought  to  be 
preferred  to  disunion,  so  long  as  the  Constitution  is  observed,  in 
the  practical  administration  of  the  government,  and  its  great 
original  principles,  generality  and  equality  amongst  all  the 
several  states  in  the  Union  strictly  regarded.  The  writer  has 
sketched  out  this  number  too  rapidly,  for  its  importance.  His 
apology  is,  that  it  is  a  subject,  which  has  long  been  familiar  to 
his  contemplation,  and  he,  therefore,  hopes  no  material  errors 
have  occurred;  but  if  it  should  turn  out  otherwise,  he  will  take 
pleasure  in  correcting  them  hereafter.  His  real  object  now  is, 
to  invite  the  attention  of  others,  to  the  just  development  of  the 
subject.  If  he  should  have  succeeded  in  effecting  that,  one 
great  object  will  be  attained. 


INDEX 


Agricultural  Societies;  214. 

Adams,  J.;  51,  54,  55,  62. 

Adams,  J.  Q.;  80,  81,  96n,  97,  99,  106, 

107n,  120,  121n,  124n,  130,  133,  135, 

139,  149,  171,  176,  189,  191,  316,  217, 

218,  226. 
Adam's     Gallatin;     86n,     114n,     135n, 

147n,  148n,  165n,  167n,  187n,  192n, 

209n. 
Adam's   History  of  U.   S.;   85n,   86n, 

96n,  !20n,  157n,  167n,  176n,   180n, 

187n,  188n,  192n. 
Adam's    Randolph;    70n,    102n,    122n, 

123n. 

Adams,   (Ship);  179. 
Albemarle  Agric.  Soc'y;  215. 
Albemarle  Co.;  113n,  145. 
Alexandria;  113n. 
Alien  act;  61,  63,  64,  67,  68,  73. 
Ambler,  C.   H.;  43n,  61n,  71n,   182n, 

189n,  209n,  213n. 
Amelia  County,  Va.;  3,  4,  38,  61,  74, 

90,  113,  237. 
American  Farmer;  214. 
Ames,  Fisher;  23,  28,  43,  49,  51. 
Ames's   Proposed   amendments;    102n. 
Ames's  State  documents;   138n,  223n. 
Anderson,  V.;  190,  191n,  200n. 
Anderson's  Va.  and  Ky.  Resolutions; 

61n. 

Anti-federalists;  15,  16. 
Apportionment  of  representation;  17, 

18,  19,  88. 

Archer,  W.  S.;  218n. 
Archer  family;  4,  43. 
Army;  73. 
Arrowhattocks ;  1. 
Asbury,  Francis;  3. 
Assumption;  11. 
Bacon,  E.;  139. 

Baldwin's  Amer.  Judiciary;  97n. 
Bank  of  Alexandria;  13n,  161. 
Bank  of   Richmond;   13n. 
Bank  of  the  Potomac;  161. 
Bank  of  the  U.  S.;  20,  21,  160,  161, 

162,  163,  164,  165,  1«7. 


Bank  of  Virginia;  13n. 

Bank  of  Washington;  161. 

Banks;  12,  13,  14. 

Banks,  in  Va.;  13n,  161. 

Bannister  family;  53. 

Baptists;   3. 

Barbour,  J.;  64,  202,  204,  205,  215. 

Barbour,  P.  P.;  236. 

Barnwell,  R.;  23. 

Barron,  Commodore;  112. 

Bassett's  Federalist  System;  31n,  49n, 

79n. 
Bayard,  J.  A.;  82,  85,  118,  142,  189, 

191. 

Beard,  C.  A.;  13n,  25n. 
Bent  Creek;  113n. 
Benton,  T.  H.;  59. 
Berkeley,  Vice-Admiral ;  112. 
Berlin  decree;  108. 
Bill  of  Rights;  234. 
Blair,  A.;  72n. 
Bland,  E.;  5. 
Bland,  Theadorick;  8. 
Bledsoe,  J.;  190. 
Ballman,  emissary  of  Burr;  107. 
Bostock  family;  1. 
Botetourt  Co.;  49n. 
Bounties;  19. 
Bradley,  S.  R.;  124. 
Branch,  Ann;  2. 
Branch,  Christopher;   1,  2. 
Branch,  Henry;  2. 
Branch,  John;  2. 
Branch,  Lionel;  1. 
Branch,  Richard;  1. 
Branch,  William;  1. 
Branch  family;  1. 
Branch  Hist.  Papers;  72n,  123n,  144n, 

167n. 

Brent,  R.;  166,  189. 
Breckenridge,  James;   189. 
Breckenridge,  John;  63,  83. 
British  debt  cases;  6,  7,  8,  43. 
Brock,  R.  A.;  8n. 
Brooks,  D.;  58. 
Brown,  J.;  190. 


264 


WILLIAM  BRANCH  GILES 


Brunskill,  John;  4. 

Burr,  A.;  51,  97,  101-111,  109. 

Burwell,  L.;  71. 

Butler,  N.  M.;  207n. 

Cabell,  James  B.;  In. 

Cabell,  J.  C.;  219. 

Cabell,  N.  F.;  215n. 

Cabell,  W.  H.;  112. 

Cabot,  G.;  31. 

Calhoun,  J.  C.;  172,  182,  201. 

Call,  D.;  91. 

Callender,  J.  T.;  91,  98. 

Campbell,  G.  W.;  120n,  129,  133,  140, 

176,  201. 

Carleton,  Gen.;  39. 
Caroline  Co.;  38,  113n. 
Carrington,  Edw.;  10. 
Chandler,  J.  A.  C.;  62n,  63n. 
Channing's  Jeffersonian  System;  81n. 
Charlotte  Co.;  145, 
Chase,  S.;  94,  95,  97,  98,  99. 
Chesapeake  outrage;  112-121. 
Chesterfield  Co.;  90. 
Cheves,  L.;  179. 
Christian,  W.  A.;  13n. 
Clark,   A.;   31. 

Clay,  H.;  159,  165,  172,  173,  176,  180, 
211,  216. 

Clinton,  G.;  123,  126,  147. 
Clopton,  J.;  71,  72n. 
Cocke,  J.  H.;  215 
Cohens  vs.  Va.;  207. 
College  of  New  Jersey;  4. 
Colonization  Societies;  227. 
Connecticut;  opposes  embargo,  138. 
Constellation  (Ship);  179. 
Constitutional    Convention    of     1839- 

1830;  229-237. 

Convention  of  1829-30;  229-337. 
Cooper,  Dr.  T.;  223. 
Courts  of  U.  S.;  76-100. 
Crawford,  W.  H.;  130,  156,  160,  162, 

179,  186,  216. 
Cumberland  Co.;  113n. 
Dallas,  A.  J.;  201. 

Daniel,  Delegate  in  H.  of  D.,  1799;  73. 
Davis,  A.;  91. 
Davis,  J.;  104. 
Dayton,  J.;  30,  59. 


Debts,  British;  6,  7,  8. 

Delaware;  opposes  embargo,  138. 

Democratic  Societies;  32,  33,  34. 

Dewey's  Financial  history;  25n. 

Disunion;  70,  223,  227. 

Dodd,  W.  E.;  26n,  207n. 

Douglas,  S.  A.;  104. 

Duane,  W.;  167. 

Dubois'   Suppression   of  slave  trade; 

106n. 

D'  Yrujo,  Spanish  Minister;  153. 
Early,  P.;  104,  105. 
Edmunds,  Col.;  8. 
Eggleston,  J.;   71. 
Eggleston  family;  4. 
Ellsworth,  O.;  31,  93. 
Embargo;  115,  122-145,  180,  197,  204. 
Eppes,  J.  W.;  90,  107,  189. 
Erskine,  D.  M.;  150,  152. 
Eustis,  W.;  149. 
Excise;  12. 
Fairfax,  Denny;  43. 
Fairfax  Devisee  vs.  Hunter's  Devisee; 

43. 

Fairfax  lands;  41,  42. 
Farmer's  Register;  215. 
Farrand,  M.;  79n,  86n. 
Findley,  W.;  23,  28,  79n. 
Fisk,  J.;  162. 
Florida,  West;  159. 
Fluvanna  Co.;  113n. 
Fontaine,  James ;  2n. 
Fontaine,  William;  2. 
Ford,  P.  L.;  22n. 
Ford's  Jefferson;  22n,  63n,  72n,  79n, 

81n,   91n,   lOln,   122n,   139n,   140n, 

213n. 

Ford's  Washington;  39n,  62n. 
France,  war  with  U.  S.;  51-58. 
Franking  privilege;  20. 
Franklin,  J.;   189. 
Fredericksburg;  62,  113n. 
Fries,  J.;  98. 
Fugitive  slave  bill;  88. 
Gallatin,  Albert;  16,  47,  89,  114,  133, 

135,   136n,  147,  148,  150,   155,  156, 

168,  169,  175,  185-195,  197. 
Gantt,  Dr.;  158. 


INDEX 


265 


Garnett,  J.   M.;    105. 

Gay's  Madison;  22n. 

Genet,  E.   C.;  27. 

German,  O.;  167,  188,  189. 

Gerry,  E.;  57. 

Gibbs,  G.;  46n. 

Giles,  John;  2. 

Giles,  William;  2,  3. 

Giles,  William  Branch;  birth,  2;  ex 
ecutor  of  father,  3;  youth,  4;  at 
Hampden-Sidney  College,  4;  at 
Princeton,  4,  5;  at  William  and 
Mary,  5;  admitted  to  practice  law, 
5;  early  career  at  bar,  6;  in  Brit 
ish  debt  cases,  6,  7,  8;  at  Va.  con 
vention  of  1783,  8;  elected  to  Con 
gress,  9;  in  3d  session  of  1st  Cong., 
11;  on  Com.  on  Mil.  Affairs,  11; 
opposes  militia  Bill,  11;  opposes 
excise,  12;  opposes  bank  bill,  13, 
14;  an  anti-federalist,  16;  re 
turned  to  2d  Congress,  16;  his 
manner  of  speaking,  16,  17;  pres 
ent  at  Congress,  Oct.  24,  1791,  17; 
attitude  toward  reapportionment, 
17,  18;  opposes  bounties,  19;  op 
poses  franking  privilege,  19;  op 
poses  Hamilton's  policies,  20;  pre 
sents  resolutions  attacking  Hamil 
ton,  20;  introduces  5  resolutions 
attacking  Hamilton,  21;  again  at 
tacks  Hamilton,  22,  23,  24;  investi 
gates  defeat  of  St.  Clair,  26;  visits 
John  Taylor,  26;  in  3d  Congress, 
27;  avows  friendship  with  France, 
27;  supports  Madison's  resolutions 
for  increased  duties,  28;  opposes 
navy,  29;  favors  sequestration  of 
debts,  30;  defends  France,  30; 
votes  for  Clark's  resolutions,  31; 
opposes  Jay  as  envoy,  32;  visits 
Jefferson,  32;  in  Congress,  Nov.  7, 
1794,  32;  defends  Democratic  so 
cieties,  33;  views  on  titled  foreign 
ers,  34;  opinion  of  slavery,  34;  on 
treaty  making  power,  44,  45,  46; 
discusses  Jay's  treaty,  47,  48,  49; 
on  Washington's  last  message,  52; 
marries  Miss  Tabb,  53;  opinion  of 


J.  Adams,  54;  attitude  towards 
France,  55,  56,  57;  defends  Mon 
roe,  55n;  on  a  navy,  57;  attends 
Congress,  Feb.  7,  1798,  57;  on 
slaves  in  the  West,  59,  60;  resigns 
from  H.  of  R.,  63;  elected  to  Gen. 
Assembly  of  Va.,  63;  on  Va.  re 
solutions,  65,  66,  69,  70;  in  As 
sembly,  1799,  71,  72;  for  separa 
tion,  71;  instructions  to  Va.  Sena 
tors,  73;  elector  in  1800,  74;  con 
gratulates  Jefferson,  76;  on  Judi 
ciary  system,  80;  leader  in  the 
House,  82;  discusses  Judiciary 
system,  83;  defends  navy,  88;  op 
poses  a  mint,  88 ;  for  fugitive  slave 
bill,  88;  on  reapportionment,  88; 
for  admission  of  Ohio,  89;  on  in 
ternal  improvements,  89;  ill-health, 
91;  letter  to  Madison  1803,  92;  ap 
pointed  senator,  93;  his  theory  of 
impeachment,  95;  views  on  Chase's 
trial,  97,  98,  99;  carries  through 
act  for  gov't  of  Orleans,  99,  100; 
in  senate,  Dec.  1806,  101;  injured 
in  accident,  101;  on  importation  of 
slaves,  104;  on  Monroe's  treaty, 
108;  withdraws  from  jury  at 
Burr's  trial,  109;  on  Burr's  trial, 
110;  resolutions  on  Chesapeake 
outrage,  113;  attends  Congress, 
Jan.  7,  1808,  115;  his  treason  bill 
116,  117;  personal  appearance, 
118;  opposes  expulsion  of  Smith, 
120;  supports  Madison  for  presi 
dency,  123,  124;  manager  for 
Madison  for  Va.,  125,  126;  sup 
ports  embargo,  130;  proposes  bill 
for  enforcement  of  embargo,  135, 
136;  defends  bill  for  enforcement 
of  embargo,  137;  supports  non- 
intercourse  with  Gt.  Brit,  140; 
opposes  selection  of  Gallatin  as 
SecV  of  State,  148;  his  policy  to 
ward  Gt.  Brit,  in  1810,  154;  speech 
on  non-intercourse  act,  151;  chair 
man  on  foreign  affairs,  151;  op 
poses  Madison  and  Gallatin  155, 


266 


WILLIAM  BRANCH  GILES 


156;  his  votes  on  Macon  bill,  158; 
second  marriage,  158;  speech  on 
Bank  of  U.  S.,  162;  theory  of 
right  of  instruction,  164;  loses 
popularity  in  Va.,  167;  opposes 
nomination  of  Monroe  as  Sec'y  of 
State,  171;  belongs  to  War  party, 
173;  chairman  of  Foreign  Affairs 
Com.,  174;  speaks  on  war  bills, 
174;  in  favor  of  regular  army, 
177;  cites  Washington  for  regular 
army,  178;  defends  navy,  179;  votes 
against  embargo,  180;  Ritchie's 
letter  in  Enquirer,  181;  votes  for 
declaration  of  war,  183;  votes  for 
additional  ships,  186;  hostile  to 
Gallatin,  186-195  ;>  approves  sea 
men's  bill,  188;  opposes  sending 
Gallatin  to  Russia,  190;  writes 
Address  to  peortle  of  Va.,  192;  op 
poses  Maryland  Memorial  for 
peace,  197;  reports  war  bills,  199; 
chairman  Com.  on  Military  Affairs, 
199;  supports  Madison,  199,  200; 
opposes  National  bank  bill,  202; 
retires  from  Congress,  204,  205; 
letter  to  Barbour,  205;  in  retire 
ment,  210;  supports  State  rights, 
211;  letters  in  the  Enquirer,  210, 
211,  212;  ODposes  Monroe's  poli 
cies,  1824,  209,  211;  opposes  J.  Q. 
Adams,  216;  letters  in  Enquirer, 
1825,  217;  candidate  for  Senate, 

1825,  218;  candidate  for  Congress, 

1826,  218;   elected   to   Legislature, 
218;    elected    governor,    218;    op 
poses    convention   bill,    219;    views 
on  slavery  and  free  negroes,  221; 
views     on     tariff,     224;     discusses 
slavery,      226;      opposes      Adam's 
candidacy,  226;  views  on  secession, 
228;  member  of  Va.   Const.  Con., 
228,  230;  views  on  constitution  of 
1776,    230;    manner    of    speaking, 
232;   defends   const,   of   1776,  233; 
views   on   separation   of  Va.,   235; 
his   "basis"   speech,  235;   views  on 
state    judiciary,    236;    elected    to 


Legislature  in  1830,  237;  dies,  Dec. 
4,  1830. 

Gilman,  N.;  189. 

Goochland    Co. ;    90. 

Goodrich,  C.;  46n,  136,  137,  154n. 

Granger,   G.;   149. 

Great  Britain;  attitude  of  U.  S.  to 
ward,  28-32;  Monroe's  treaty,  107; 
apology  for  Chesapeake  outrage, 
114. 

Green,  D.;  218n. 

Grenville,  Lord;  42. 

Grenville  lands;  42. 

Grigsby,  H.  B.;  8n,  36n,  65n,  87n, 
145n,  236n. 

Griswold,  R.;  89. 

Grundy,  F.;  172. 

Gunn,  J.;  86. 

Gwynn,  Frances  A.;  158. 

Gwynn,  T.  P.;  158. 

Habeas  corpus;  70n,  106,  107. 

Haley,  J.  C.;  227. 

Hamilton,  Alex. ;  recommendations, 
1790,  12;  resolutions  presented  by 
Giles  against,  20;  answers  resolu 
tions,  21,  22;  Giles's  9  resolutions 
against,  22,  23;  triumph  of,  24; 
named  as  envoy  to  Gt.  Brit,  31; 
defends  Jay's  treaty,  38;  on  treaty 
making  power,  46;  essay  by,  85n. 

Hamilton,  P.;  149. 

Hamilton's  Monroe;  125n,  171n. 

Hamilton's  Republic;  22n,  28n,  29n. 

Hampden-Sydney  College;   4. 

Hampton;  113n. 

Hancock,  Geo.;  49; 

Harper,  R.  G.;  55n,  58,  59. 

Harrison's  campaign;  179. 

Hay,  G.;   127,  214. 

Hawkins,  B.;  26,  91. 

Heath,  John;  42. 

Henderson,  A.  N.;  87n. 

Henry,  John.;   180. 

Henry,  Patrick;  6,  13n,  71,  72. 

Henry's  Henry;  71n,  72n. 

Heth,   W.;   92. 

Hillhouse,  J.;  28,  118,  130,  134,  144n, 
154. 


INDEX 


267 


Holland,  J.;  42. 

House  of  Representatives;  apportion 
ment,  17,  18,  19. 

Howe,  J.;  144n,  183n. 

Hunt,  G.;  30n. 

Hunt's  Madison;  129n,  183n,  219n. 

Impeachment;  95. 

Impressment;   188. 

Jackson,  A.;  52,  203,  218,  226. 

Jackson,  "Copenhagen";   152. 

James's  Struggle  lor  rel.  lib.;  4n. 

Jay,  John;  31,  32. 

Jay  treaty;  36-50. 

Jefferson,  J.  G.;  29. 

Jefferson,  Thos.;  his  opinion  of  Giles, 
6,  7n;  organizes  a  party,  15,  16; 
resolutions  attacking  Hamilton, 
21;  comments  on  Giles's  attack  on 
Hamilton,  24>n;  Virginia's  loss  of 
slaves,  39;  on  Jay's  treaty,  45n; 
candidate  ior  presidency,  51;  to 
Jonn  layior,  61;  to  fc>.  T.  Mason, 
62;  sends  Ky.  resolutions  to  Madi 
son,  63;  Madison's  report,  lvi/9, 
73n;  letter  to  liowan,  7 On;  con 
gratulated  by  Giles,  76;  principle 
as  to  appointments,  79;  removal  of 
officials,  bl;  message,  Dec.  8,  1801, 
80;  letter  to  Giles,  Feb.  23,  1806, 
101;  message,  Uec.  lbU6,  103;  on 
3d  term,  122;  on  embargo,  129; 
returns  to  Va.,  146;  deplores  dis 
sensions  in  Madison's  cabinet,  168; 
hostile  to  Marshall,  208;  on  U. 
S.  courts,  209;  financial  difficulties, 
213;  interested  in  agricultural  so 
cieties,  215;  attitude  on  Adam's 
candidacy,  226;  favors  new  con 
stitution  for  Va.;  229. 

Jefferson  Co.;  182. 

Jones,  W.;   168,   190. 

Judges,  removal  of;  77,  78,  79,  97. 

Judiciary  act  of  1801;  93. 

Judiciary  system;  80,  83,  84. 

Kentucky;    173. 

Kentucky  resolutions;  63. 

King,  C.;  200. 

King,  R.;  31,  80,  189,  190,  191. 


King  and  Queen  Co.;  113n. 

King's  King;  31n,  49n. 

Knowles,  Bethenia;  2. 

Knowles,  John;  2. 

Lafayette,  Marquis  de;  226. 

Latrobe's  journal;  6n. 

Lee,   H.;   64,  72. 

Leib,  M.;  151n,  160,  167,  187,  188,  189. 

Leigh,  B.  W.;  102n,  127,  166. 

Leopard  (ship);  112. 

Lewis,  J.;   189. 

Licensing  act;  204. 

Lincoln,   L.;    138. 

Livingston,  E,.;  5,  44,  52. 

Lloyd,  J.;  130,  134,  137,  154,  179. 

Locke,  J.;  234. 

Lodge's  Hamilton;  22n,  71n,  85n. 

Lodge's  Washington;  31n,  38n. 

Louisa  Co.;  113n. 

Louisiana;  99,  100,  159. 

Lynchburg;  113n. 

Mac  Duffie;  226. 

Macon,  N.;  16,  26,  42,  52,  82,  105, 
126. 

Macon  Bills;  157,  158. 

Madison,  James;  letter  of  introduc 
tion  to,  10;  an  Anti-federalist,  16; 
resolutions  attacking  Hamilton, 
21;  defends  resolutions  against 
Hamilton,  23;  resolutions  for  in 
creased  duties,  28,  29;  opinion  as 
to  titled  foreigners,  34;  on  com. 
on  President's  message,  44;  dis 
cusses  Jay's  treaty,  47 ;  on  Wash 
ington's  last  message,  53;  receives 
Ky.  resolutions  from  Jefferson, 
63;  resolutions  by,  64;  in  As 
sembly,  1799,  72;  report  1799,  73; 
on  Va.  resolutions,  68,  69;  letter 
from  Giles,  1803,  91;  letter  from 
Giles  on  ill-health,  92;  Yazoo 
claims,  122;  Randolph's  opposition 
to,  123;  nominated  for  Pres.,  124; 
elected  President,  127;  on  em 
bargo,  March  8,  1808,  129;  sus 
pends  non-intercourse  with  Gt. 
Britain,  150;  proclaims  non-inter 
course  act  in  force,  152;  recom- 


268 


WILLIAM  BRANCH  GILES 


mends  volunteer  force,  154;  op 
posed  by  Giles,  155 ;  Giles's  opinion 
of,  169;  War  of  1812,  171-184;  2d 
nomination  for  presidency,  181; 
nominates  Gallatin  to  Russia,  190- 
191;  closing  of  the  war,  196-206; 
financial  difficulties,  213;  president 
Albemarle  Agric.  Soc'y,  215;  com 
ments  on  resolutions  of  1826,  219; 
member  convention  1829-30,  230. 

Magruder's  Marshall;  38n,  61n. 

Manchester,   113n,  182. 

Marbury    vs.    Madison;    94. 

Marshall,  John;  introduces  Giles  to 
Madison,  10;  envoy  to  France,  57; 
return  from  France,  61;  insulted 
at  Fredericksburg,  62;  candidate 
for  Congress,  71,  82;  in  Va.  Const. 
Con.,  87;  Marbury  vs.  Madison,  94; 
criticized  by  Giles,  117;  cited  by 
Giles  in  favor  of  regular  army, 
178;  McCullough  vs.  Md.,  207;  on 
commission  for  internal  improve 
ments  in  Va.,  208;  Pres.  of  Agric. 
Soc'y,  214;  member  convention  of 
1829-30,  231;  in  conv.  of  1829,  236. 

Martin  vs.  Hunter's  Lessee;  207. 

Mason,  George;  8,  233. 

Mason,  J.;   189. 

Mason,  S.  T.;  36,  37,  42,  43,  62,  87. 

Massachusetts;  128,  138. 

Maury,  Ann;  2n. 

McLaughlin,  A.  C.;  41n,  69n. 

McMaster's  U.  S.;  22n,  30n,  31n,  38n, 
49n,  61n. 

Meade,  W.  M.;  78. 

Meade's  Old  Churches;  3n,  4n. 

Mercer,  in  H.  of  D.  in  1799;  73. 

Merry,  A.;   150. 

Militia;   199,  200,  203. 

Mint,  88. 

Mississippi  Territory;  59. 

Mitchell,  S.  L.;  117,  130. 

Monroe,  James;  on  British  debt  cases, 
6;  proposition  in  regard  to  British 
debts,  43;  letter  from  Roane,  72; 
letter  to  Taylor,  1803,  91;  treaty 
with  Gt.  Britain,  101-111;  letter 


from  Giles,  Mar.  4,  1807,  102;  as 
successor  to  Jefferson,  122,  123, 
124,  125;  defeated  for  presidency, 
1808,  127;  becomes  Sec'y  of  State, 
167,  168,  169;  Giles  opposes  his 
nomination  as  Sec'y  of  State,  171; 
on  factions  against  Madison,  192; 
policies  attacked  by  Giles,  1824, 
209;  financial  difficulties,  213; 
Vice-pres.  Agric.  Soc'y,  214;  mem 
ber  convention  1829-30,  230;  on 
slavery,  232. 

Moreau  de  Saint-M6ry's  Voyage;  61n. 

Moore,  A.;  130. 

Morrison,  A.  J. ;  6n. 

Morse's  Jefferson;  81n. 

Murray,  W.  Vans;  23,  28,  80. 

National  bank;  12,  15. 

National  bank  bill;  202. 

National  Intelligencer;  223. 

Naturalization  laws;   34. 

Navigation   acts ;   40. 

Navy;  29,  73. 

New  England;  attitude  toward  war  of 
1812;  196,  198. 

New  York  (State) ;  173. 

Nicholas,  G.;  62. 

Nicholas,  J.;  60. 

Nicholas,  W.  C.;  62,  63n,  64,  73n,  87, 
109,  114n,  123,  124,  139,  140,  147, 
148,  168,  173. 

Nicholson,  J.;  95,  lOln,  102,  120n. 

Niles,  H.;  232. 

Norfolk;  38,  40,  74,  112,  219,  227. 

Norfolk  Co.;  39. 

Non-intercourse  act  with  Gt.  Britain; 
140,  150,  151. 

North  Carolina;  42. 

Nullification;  68,  69. 

Ohio;  88,  89. 

Olmstead  case;  208. 

Orange  Co.;  113n. 

Orders  in  council;  150,  152. 

Orleans,  Territory;  99,  100. 

Otis,  H.  G.;  58. 

Overton,  Mrs.  W.;  2n,  54n. 

Page,  J.;  92. 

Parker,  J.;  21. 


INDEX 


Pendleton,  E.;  71. 

Pennsylvania;    173. 

Petersburg;  5,  6,  38,  113,  227. 

Peyton    family ;    53. 

Phillips,  U.  B.;  24n. 

Pickering,  J.;  94. 

Pickering,  MSS.;  16n,  71n. 

Pickering,  T.;   16n,  88,  134,  138,  154. 

Pinckney,  C.  C.;  55,  56,  57,  80. 

Pinckney,  T.;  51. 

Pinkney,  Wm.;   107,  129. 

Pleasants,  H.  R.;  231. 

Pope,  J.;  117,  130,  159. 

Port  Royal;  113n. 

Porter,  P.  B.;  172,  173,  177. 

Portsmouth;  112. 

Powhatan  Co.;  38,  90,  113n. 

Presbyterians;  3. 

Princeton  College;  4. 

Quids;  102,  182. 

Quincy,  J.;   136,  145,  154,  213. 

Raleigh,  parish;  4. 

Rumsay's  South  Carolina;  144n. 

Randall's  Jefferson;  46n,  49n,  62n,  72n, 
73,  109n,  149n. 

Randolph,  J.;  on  armory  at  Rich 
mond,  70;  on  Jefferson's  attitude 
toward  Federalists,  81;  Chairman 
of  Ways  and  Means  Committee,  82 ; 
defends  Giles,  85;  Consults  with 
Giles  on  Chase's  trial,  95;  Mana 
ger  in  Chase  trial,  97,  99 ;  Criticizes 
Jefferson  and  Cabinet,  101,  102; 
on  importation  of  slaves,  104,  105; 
foreman  cf  Grand  jury  in  Burr 
trial,  110;  Anti-judiciary  attitude, 
120n;  desires  Monroe  for  Presi 
dent,  122,  123,  124;  opposes  con 
cuss,  125;  intrigues  for  Monroe, 
126,  127;  on  southern  violations 
of  embargo,  144n;  tells  Quincy 
Embargo  was  ruining  Virginia, 
145;  an  independent  under  Madi 
son,  146;  on  Giles's  speech  on  Bank 
of  U.  S.,  165;  on  Smith  faction, 
167;  opposes  declaration  of  War, 
182;  defeated  by  J.  W.  Eppes, 
189;  opens  breach  among  Repub 
licans,  198;  on  Giles's  retirement, 


206;  in  Strict  Construction  party 
of  Virginia,  208;  on  economic  con 
dition  of  Virginia,  213;  duel  with 
R.  B.  Taylor,  219;  in  convention, 
1829;  30,  231. 

Randolph,  P.;  127. 

Randolph,  T.  M.;  140n,  215. 

The  Recorder;  91. 

Representation  in  Congress;  17,  18,  19, 
88. 

Representation  in  Va.  legislature; 
233. 

Resolutions  of  1798;  61. 

Rhode  Island;  opposes  embargo,  138. 

Richmond;  61,  72,   113n,   182,  227. 

Richmond  Society  for  promoting  agri 
culture;  214. 

Ritchie,  T.;  139,  167,  168,  173,  181, 
205,  208,  218,  223,  226,  237. 

Roane,  S.;  72,  93,  139,  173,  207,  208, 
209. 

Rodney,  C.  A.;  149,  165. 

Royall,  W.  L.;  13n. 

Ruffin,  E.;  215. 

Rowan,  A.  R. ;  70n. 

Rush,  B.;  81. 

Russell,  J.;  191,  192n. 

Rutledge,  E.;  45n. 

Schoepfs  Travels;  6n. 

Schouler's  History;  12n,  19n,  22n,  23n, 
25n,  28n,  29n,  31n,  37n,  80n,  82n, 
90n,  128n,  153n,  204n. 

Seamen's  bill;  188. 

Secession;  61,  68,  196,  227,  235. 

Sedgwick,  T.;  44,  46n. 

Sedition  act;  61,  63,  64,  67,  68,  73. 

Seybert's   Statistical   annals;    144n. 

Semple's  Virginia  Baptist;  3n. 

Sequestration  of  debts;  30. 

Sheffey,  D.;  189,  200. 

Sitgreaves,  S. ;  44. 

Slaves,  loss  of,  by  Va.  in  Rev.;  39, 
47. 

Slaves,  importation  of;  104. 

Slavery,  36;  views  of  Giles,  34;  in 
Mississippi  territory,  59;  in  Va., 
232. 

Smilie,  J.;  28. 

Smith,  John,  Sen.  from  Ohio;  120. 


270 


WILLIAM  BRANCH  GILES 


Smith,  Robert;  114n,  146-170. 

Smith,  Sam'l;  28,  106,  109,  130,  146, 
170,  187,  188,  189. 

Smith,  Sam'l  Stanhope;  4. 

Smith,  Wm.;  23,  28,  57,  80. 

Smith  faction;  146-170. 

South  Carolina;  173,  223. 

Southern  States ;  effect  of  embargo  on, 
144;  economic  condition,  1820-30, 
212;  tariff  in,  214. 

Sprigg,  R.;  58. 

St.  Clair,  defeat  of;  26. 

Stanwood's  history  of  pres.  elections; 
128n. 

State  control  of  militia;  203. 

State  rights;  207-237. 

Stolo,  Caius  Licinius;  1. 

Stone,  D.;  189. 

Story,  J.;  119,  139,  140n,  142. 

Strong,  C.;  31. 

Suffrage  in  Va.;  233. 

Sumner,  C.;  176. 

Swartwouts,  emissary  of  Burr;   107. 

Tabb,  John;  53. 

Tabb,  Martha  Peyton;  53. 

Tabb  family;  4,  53. 

Tariff;  212,  214,  223,  224. 

Tarleton,  B. ;  2. 

Taylor,  Creed;  102,  125. 

Taylor,  G.  K.;  64,  65,  66,  73. 

Taylor,  John  of  Carolina;  Giles  visits, 
26;  writes  Confidential  Memoran 
dum  for  Madison,  30;  talks  seces 
sion,  61;  Jefferson  writes  to,  on 
Va.  Resolutions,  63;  offers  Va. 
Resolutions,  64;  in  debate  on  Va. 
Resolutions,  69n;  returned  to  As 
sembly,  72;  on  Committee  on 
Governor's  Message,  73;  Monroe  re 
grets  absence  of,  from  Congress, 
91;  Jefferson  writes  to,  on  3d 
term,  122;  stimulates  Monroes  dis 
content,  123n;  intrigues  for  Mon 
roe,  126,  127;  receives  letter  on 
Monroe's  exoneration,  171 ;  in  strict 
Construction  party,  208;  dies  in 
1824,  209;  president  of  Richmond 
agri.  society,  215. 


Taylor,  R.  B. ;  219. 

Tazewell,  H.;  36,42,  43. 

Tazewell,  L.  W.;  218n,  224,  236. 

Tennessee;  173. 

Tiflin,  E.;  120n. 

Titled  foreigners ;  34. 

Tracy,  U.;  28. 

Treason  bill;  112-121. 

Treasury  Dept;  21. 

Treaty  making  power;  44,  45. 

Trigg,  A.;  105. 

Troup,  G.  M.;  176,  200. 

Turner,  F.  J.;  213n. 

Turner,  J.;  186. 

Tyler,  J.;  166,  208,  224. 

Tyler's  Lives  and  Times  of  the  Tylers; 
166n. 

University  of  Va.;  215. 

Van  Tyne's  Webster;  190n,  192n. 

Varnum,  J.  B.;  200n. 

Venable,  A.  B.;  5,  13n,  26,  52,  93,  214. 

Venable,  R.  N.;  5. 

Venable,  Sam'l;  5. 

Virginia ;  convention  of  1788,  8 ;  banks, 
13n;  denounces  Jay's  treaty,  38; 
British  debts,  38;  slaves  carried 
off  by  British,  39,  47;  loss  in  the 
Revolution,  39,  47;  West  Indian 
trade,  40;  British  debts  in,  43; 
elections  after  the  negotiation  of 
Jay's  treaty,  43 ;  petitions  for  Jay's 
treaty,  48;  resolutions  of  1798,  61- 
75;  in  1798,  69,  70;  campaign  of 
1799,  71;  judges  in  87;  supports 
embargo,  139;  effect  of  embargo, 
145;  attitude  toward  Bank  of 
U.  S.,  160;  banks  in,  161;  favors 
war,  181;  Supreme  Court,  207; 
state  rights  in,  after  1812,  207-237; 
economic  condition,  1820-30,  213; 
slavery,  213n,  227,  232;  agricul 
tural  societies,  214;  Const,  conven 
tion,  229-237;  constitution  of  1776, 
229;  separation  of,  235. 

Virginia  Gazette  and  General  Adver 
tiser,  91. 

Volunteer  bill;  178,  179. 

War  of  1812;  171-184,  196-206. 


INDEX 


271 


Warfield,  E.  D.;  63n. 

Washington,  G.;  opposes  Democratic 
societies,  33;  Virginia  slaves  lost 
in  Rev.,  39;  message  on  Jay's 
treaty,  44;  message  on  treaty  mak 
ing  power,  46;  retirement,  51;  con 
fers  with  Marshall,  62 ;  in  campaign 
of  1799,  71,  72;  citied  by  Giles  in 
favor  of  regular  army,  178;  on 
agric.  societies,  214. 

Webster,  D.;  190n,  192. 

Wells,  W.  H.;  191. 

West  Florida;   159. 

West  Indian  trade;  108. 

Westmoreland  Co.;   113n. 

White,  S.;  130. 


Wigwam ;   54. 

Wilkinson,  J.;  97,  110. 

Wilkinson,  Miles;  39. 

William  and  Mary  College;  62. 

Wilson's  Division  and  reunion;  214. 

Wirt,  W.;  125,  127,  146,  168. 

Wise,  in  H.  of  D.,  1799;  73. 

Wishart,  Thos.;  39. 

Woodhouse,  E.  J.;  42n,  226n. 

Worthington,  Col.;  92. 

Wright,  R.;  176. 

Wythe,  Geo.;  38. 

Wythe  Co.,  Va.,  Democratic  Society 

32. 
Yazoo  claims;  101,  102,  122. 


14  DAY  USE 

RETURN  TO  DESK  FROM  WHICH  BORROWED 

LOAN  DEPT. 

This  book  is  due  on  the  last  date  stamped  below,  or 

on  the  date  to  which  renewed. 
Renewed  books  are  subject  to  immediate  recall. 


R  r^    *-   ~-  — 

INTER*"  LIBRARY 

MUG  tv  i960 

LUAIM 

H  1  '     5 

MOV  9     \9o^* 

t 

i  N/^rs 

(     A      [< 

• 

LDAiJ 

. 
- 

.ION    a?%? 

f(     C£XA--J 

^  i  v^  .  L>IOv^« 

AUG  fel  1963 

JUN  j  ?  ;  •-:- 

M^VHtf^^^V^         W         V"^. 

REG  D  LD 

• 

. 

AUG  2:- 

LD  21A-50m-4  '60 
(A9562slO)476B 

General  Library 
University  of  California 
Berkeley 

/ HO 


U.C.  BERKELEY  LIBRARIES 


COQSS777bb 


£7-30, 


UNIVERSITY  OF  CALIFORNIA  LIBRARY 


